How the Internet will disrupt higher education’s most valuable asset: Prestige
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Besides, being around a pack of intelligent, highly motivated people (what their admissions select for) 24/7 was incredibly fun. I mean, you're around people who build CPUs out of 7400 ttl chips, people who build stereo equipment from scratch just because it's fun, people who build a working railroad running through the dorms, and on and on. If you want to see what it was like, see the movie "Real Genius", which was based on events at Caltech. The movie exaggerates, but not as much as you might think :-)
Edit: I also have to admit that the embarrassment of failing was a motivator that wouldn't exist if I attended remotely, along with the shared camaraderie of working on and succeeding at something hard.
Surely that could be much cheaper. But would be just as good ? maybe.
And as for prestige ? if you build the admission process on extremely high standards , and offer something unique that the big universities won't offer , maybe you'll manage to get extremely talented students. And that's the key for building prestige.
Makes sense ?
EDIT: one more question - once you're an esteemed graduate of this institution ,sort of a "navy seal", in this day and age where talent is the limited resource in making money(and surviving in business), how hard would it be to arrange the networking ?
Ans isn't all this kinda like what ycombinator did?
It's like the difference between listening to a CD and going to a concert.
However, online classes or MOOCs are intended to be a solution to a problem. I don't think they will ever be better than an in-person education, if you can spend 4-10 years after high school not worrying about time or money and just focusing on your education. For a great number of people that is not a possibility. When looking at a partially social issue like education, we need to pay more attention to how it plays out for the lowest 10% not the highest 10%.
Heck, I watch online course material while I do my exercising.
So what do we solve this problem then? While our economy does demand increased knowledge for a good wage we also ALL know about the near pointless demand for increased credentials. We ALL know a certain chunk of top-echelon jobs are all but removed based on our university pedigree. This isn't even efficient for the economy, but that's a completely different post.
We need to get more people more education, we need to quit demanding absurd amounts of credentials for everything from a barber to a glorified desk jockey, and we need to not cut off people from a prosperous life path because of their pedigree or poor decisions made in the first 22 years of their life.
Online degrees were/are an attempt to solve this. So how do we fix them or what else do we do?
Oh, and add some VR campus in the mix.
Of course, networking has always been a big part of the benefit being accepted to an elite university, so while I accept the learning part of it will be easily disrupted, I am not really convinced (yet) that the signalling and the networking can be replaced so easily.
[edits]
Admissions at Harvard or Stanford doesn't use a random number generator to determine admissions after a 'meets minimum requirements' filter. It would be as if a student got accepted to Harvard, Stanford, MIT, 5 state schools and 10 community colleges and then used a coin flip to determine where to go.
That’s another way to solve the >10x applicants issue.
With this scheme, if a school inflates their grades it will have a larger adjustment down. It's entirely based on past performance of people from the school, so there's no standardized tests to worry about. Theoretically, one could have an adjustment upwards, but I've never heard of it happening (I participated in department meetings where they discussed admissions in general). The adjustments are usually somewhere between 20 and mid to high 20s percent. Some are higher (not many), but a few are lower but not by much.
Reputation is also very fluid over time, Yale arguably took a big if likely short term hit from George W. Bush. Of course with 5 presidents Yale clearly has some serious connections.
I have even seen things swing both ways as schools are looked at as a great talent source. This lets less capable people in on reputation. Resulting in a backlash where people think X is overrated.
PS: Don't forget the supply of Genius is smaller than the number of slots at top schools and many of them take other paths. So, you got a pool that's above average, but not that far above average.
Working in concert and amplifying each other over time, these factors are responsible, ultimately, for creating the benefits that we all perceive as intrinsic to an Ivy League education -- namely, engaging and networking with lots of smart and motivated peers and mentors.
In the private sector there is a bias to cut out overqualified candidates ex: MS or several years experience for entry level work. The assumption is someone may need a job now in a downturn, but that would move on quickly or have higher salary expectations.
Asking about it someone also said "People also flat out lie which makes a significant qualification / role mismatch suspicious."
And finally, I suspect there may be some jealousy involved.
As for the 4-yr university degree, it's always been more about discipline than anything else. A completed degree is as you say - a signal for discipline - which is probably why more and more employers are caring less about the exact type of degree, and more about whether it was "quantitative".
Because everyone else is farming the same universities, making these candidates overpriced. Google and other tech companies have considerably widened their net, when they could no longer rely on Stanford et al alone.
This is highly dependent on the field. (see mechanical engineering), but you are also correct in that is signals this person has the ability, dedication and perseverance to learn complex tasks and items for an extended period of time (in terms of IT/tech).
Back then, there was absolutely no substitute for the in-house training I got from going to classes and doing my homework and taking the test etc etc...
Today, I am far from convinced that people cannot simple learn the informational part of it all through (yes albeit intense) online courses, videos, and training.
Do we want people building bridges and building without proving they understand their static and dynamic physics and structural limitations of materials and such??
Of course not...but these things can be solved via various technical means that do not necessarily require sitting in real-world, outdated classrooms.
As the Internet chips away at the practical reasons for limiting the student population, the real reason Yale limits the size of its classes will become more obvious.
Decreased barriers to entry of getting a degree will draw attention to the fact that it is (and arguably always has been) 20% about what you learn, 80% about who you meet.
MOOCs are not going to disrupt prestige, they're going to make it even more important as a signal in an increasingly noisy market.
The raw information presented in the curricula is the least valuable part of the entire experience; the market reflects this fact.
How does your theory hold up in countries where universities accept everyone, but degrees are still useful?
I suspect, from my personal experience; n=small etc, the value in the ~knowledge~ of a 4 year bachelor's degree in the united states is very close to 0, honestly. Especially for the people in this community, I would be extremely surprised if what was taught in schools came up anywhere bu a white board interview from a pretentious company.
I would love to hear counter anecdotes or be presented data to the contrary
I am most familiar with the German system (as of a decade ago). We just don't have that many globally relevant top schools, and for the ones we have, competition isn't that tough (outside of specific fields like medicine).
If you want to study, say, maths basically everyone who clears the threshold can just sign up to any university.
And the `single testscores' aint so, it's usually an average of your last two years of high school grades (=Abiturnoten). These are easily gamed, of course. If you are willing to wait, there's also a queue for eg medicine to get in with worse grades.
It's not all roses---partly because of almost no selection on entry, attrition rates especially in first year can be truly atrocious.
That's not a social network. It's a number of social networks. It's inevitable that you'll only connect with a smaller number of classmates, and AFAIK classes are even organized with that in mind (the whole generation is split into smaller groups that then have classes together).
The whole point of networking is so you don't have to cold-approach someone and there'll be someone or something you have in common. The whole point of social networking tools (LinkedIn, Facebook) is so you know who that person is.
The value, from an employment standpoint at the very least, is not what you learned in school, but the reasons you were selected to participate in the community doing the learning. The elite institutions spend considerable time and expense collecting a curated group of top performers to a single location. From a creative and developmental perspective this is huge for the students. From a signalling perspective this huge for employers.
My prediction, perhaps as laughably misguided as I think this article is, is that the paridime shift will come from employers. As taboos against training wear away, and groups begin to see how much cheaper it can be to hire and train high school graduates the demand for college graduates will abate. This probably won't effect the Columbias, or the Yales of the world, but will likely eliminate most of the hugely expensive less prestigious institutions.
Prestige is such an interesting phenomena, in that it's a weird mix of purchasable brandname and non-purchasable exclusivity. I'm not even sure what the most prestigious website on the internet would be: wikipedia?
MOOC's service everyone else, who can't digest or access the "prestigious" stuff. At least by this definition of "prestige".
MOOCs are tearing frantically at the fig leaves, but the underlying business model is entirely unharmed. The best students will still crawl over bodies to gain admittance. Tuitions will remain high. The alumni will still make extraordinary endowments.
It's like saying online porn will replace sex - since at the end, you orgasm.
In exchange, I suppose, the poorer students get to network with the people who may later fund their business.
[1] Don't remember who, so I can't provide credit
1. Social status signaling. Including networking among alumni.
2. An environment with interpersonal interactions among the top performers will push you further than working solo.
Rather than simply saying "MOOCs don't do 1&2", we should phrase it as "what will it look like when they do?". Clearly the internet can handle social status signaling. The internet can also organize groups around specific interests. There are unique social groups that exist now precisely because of the internet.
For now MOOCs are a web version of correspondence courses. Is that all they will ever be? I doubt it. If I had to bet on education 100 years from now, I'd expect it to look more like MOOCs than the traditional collegiate experience. Certainly there are gaps in what exists today, but I'd expect those gaps to close faster than traditional colleges will adjust.
1) I'm the kind of person who can pay larger amounts of money than most for an education.
2) I know and am known by lots of people who fit into the group described by #1.
Until that happens I don't think any ivy covered bricks are coming tumbling down any time soon.
Sometimes it looks like the role of education in america is to sort people into relevant socio-economic classes. Not through any nefarious scheme, but rather, our system just depends on (and creates) some degree of inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) #theUnicornEconomy
>"...it will be harder and harder for Yale to explain what it offers for all that money except a piece of paper that says you went to Yale."
Yale has been clear about that since roughly 1693.
I think the universities understand a lot better than the MOOCs that the point was never that Stanford had education you can't get elsewhere, but that it lets you tell people you went to Stanford and other people didn't.
Er, they don't. MOOCs recognize that people come to higher education for several different purposes, including education, credentialing for employment, and networking (possibly others, but those are the big three.)
Most MOOCs build on this understanding with a business model that gives away much (though, often, not all) of the "education" part away free-of-charge and selling credentialing as a premium service.
> I think the universities understand a lot better than the MOOCs that the point was never that Stanford had education you can't get elsewhere, but that it lets you tell people you went to Stanford and other people didn't.
I think MOOCs understand that. OTOH, the value proposition of MOOCs to users is that they unbundled some of the things bundled together in universities, so that people who don't need the things which .
It's actually quite a lot. Not so much any specific bit of knowledge, but just experience in hacking away. (That's not so much taught at uni, but still requires more time than three months.)
Intelligence? That's pretty easy to measure on its own. Hard work? Hoop jumping?
I'm not really sure. And I say this as someone who hires programmers and sees a CS Degree from Stanford as a pretty strong positive.
To adapt a scene from Bojack Horseman[1]:
"You're probably wondering how we got all these students to go to great lengths to be accepted to our school."
'You said it was because you offer a good education.'
"Right, but you're probably wondering the real way we get students to come here."
'Nope, we took you at face value!'
[1] http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=361&t...
So by making it a national competition, MOOCs have an advantage for those companies seeking high quality candidates.
Also, they deliver a more standardized training experience: Even if you took some interesting but non-conventional AI class at Harvey Mudd, it might be better for companies hiring junior devs to just know you're competent at the basics from your online work.
Just as a for instance, putting everyone in a MOOC proves to be more of a problem than it may at first seemed to some people.
But all those things that happen over 12 years of working made returning for a masters infeasible e.g. wife, kids, an appreciation for meals that do not involve ramen noodles and hotdogs... About a year ago I had the opportunity to apply to Georgia Tech's Online Master's of Computer Science program (OMSCS).[1][2] I'm currently 1/2 through the program.
I've taken online courses before and I consistently (2 or 3 times a year) attended local community college classes on various topics or refreshers. But I feel the OMSCS program is doing it differently and, largely, is "getting it right". I'll try to cover the most common critiques of MOOC's and how I think OMSCS can, hopefully, serve as a model for other universities to expand into remote learning.
Attending a University is as much about the culture/people/experience as the raw knowledge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree. However, GATech's program has made collaboration between students a priority. We're given a lot of tools including weekly group video conferencing with TA's, very active student forums, actively engaged/participant professors and TA's, and local study groups for students in the same general area. In some ways, I feel even more connected to professors than I did when on campus. Generally the professor was available in class, office hours, and through email. Email response was often spotty or too a few days. I get responses from a professor, TA, or student within a day if not within hours on the forums. Student provided answers often receive a "+1" by TA's or professors or a correction/clarification if that is needed.
However, it's true that the 'flow' of conversation is not as dynamic and as a consequence can be less engaging as in classroom settings given the delay of forum communication. Also, I'm sure the on campus students have access to many of these tools as well. For me personally, I was less likely to leverage the other tools if I'd already sat in class that day.
Recruiters and employers look for the 'signal' that comes with a prestigious university program
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel this is over played. MIT, Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, etc. are obviously good schools. But anyone whose been interviewing and hiring for any amount of time knows they're not guarantees and much more goes into a good employee than simply making it through a rigorous academic program. But you it does carry _some_ weight. Just not as much as many imply.
One of the reasons I selected this program is the degree rewarded is indistinguishable from their on campus degree. The "signal" this provides for students and employers is the university is willing to put their full faith and credit behind the education I'm purchasing. If MOOC's are to succeed this is the only model that will work. Why should I pay the university if they insist on signaling that it is a lesser education through degree differentiation. If they are incapable of delivering the same rigor and quality, I'd rather just read a book or take a free course.
MOOC's aren't a threat to prestigious education, just community colleges and small schools
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I agree. Community colleges are already very affordable. Georgia Tech is in the top 5 computer science programs in the country. That's a high degree of prestige. If they can deliver on their promise, maintain the quality of students & education their delivering, if they issue degrees indistinguishable from the on campus degrees, and if they can do so at higher volumes and good profit margins other high end universities should feel very threatened. Particularly since since the margins are quite large. All the tuition goes towards the professors, TA's, and a smidgin of an amount toward infrastructure. And they can handle much larger student bodies.
That means more highly qualified STEM workers carrying your degree. Which incurs more prestige on your program and attracts more students...which you can actually accept if qualified.
1. http://www.omscs.gatech.edu
2. Full disclaimer: I work for AT&T, a partner in the creation of the OMSCS program with Georgia Tech & Udacity, though I had no involvement in that process other than benefitting as a student.
This effect is what is allowing the rent seeking behavior of administrators and contractors which is driving the increase in college costs [1]. The wages for professors, who provide the primary paid labor for the educational process, has not increased, and the move to reduce the cost of professors by switching to adjuncts has been extensively noted e.g. [2].
If professors felt free to simply start up a new college whenever they felt that the cost of administration was getting out of hand, they would be able to bid up the cost of their labor in step with the increase in tuition. But because the prestige effect is so strong, they have less power in the relationship than the administrators. Note that professors with star power reputations do not have this dynamic, as they have prestige of their own.
I think that MOOCs may be the wrong direction to look for a solution. Prestige is strongly correlated with the age of an institution. The Ivy League was originally called such because the buildings were old enough to have ivy covering their walls, unlike the newer colleges of the time. It is also correlated with the accomplishments associated with an institution. A MOOC is just asking for trouble in the prestige department! Just look at how people with a Georgia Tech online masters have to explain it as being equal in worth to an in-person experience. You don't need to explain to your mom why Yale is close to Harvard in prestige. Maybe someday that will change, but it's not an answer to the problem today.
Instead, a more low-tech but more likely to work answer is to restore control of the prestige to the faculty and take that power away from the administrators. This may take the form of internal changes to the existing universities, or maybe things will get bad enough that there will be a mass exodus of professors starting their own colleges.
[1]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2...
[2]http://www.thenation.com/article/why-is-college-so-expensive...