future of college? (article) - Minerva

[MarkT]

FYI

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-future-of-college/375071/

 

Personally I am not a big fan of for-profit colleges.  For example in this particular article the corporation producing the education technology and consulting could be for-profit with the "school" itself being a non-profit or other entity not totally beholden to the bottom line of quarterly profits.

 

 

[Lori D.]

Hmmm…

I just skimmed the article, but what it largely seemed to be about was the novel approach to teaching/learning through the intense computer interactive model. My reaction to that is that not all students learn well in that type of situation. Myself, as an example. ;) As an extreme introvert, I need a LOT of time to quietly SOLO read, research, absorb, and THINK before entering into a group discussion setting on a specific subject. I'm pretty sure I would shut down and fail, or at least be totally turned-off by, Minerva's intense, rapid-fire, forced participation/group dynamic learning environment. I felt a high level of stress and anxiety just reading about it! :laugh: But, for those who learn well in that type of setting, that sounds like a great use of new technologies to draw like-minded people together for learning through discussion. :)

 

As for the for-profit college aspect…

In the past I would have said I was not fond of for-profits either, BUT… this past year has really changed my mind that, depending on the school, for-profits CAN be a very good option.

 

DH spent this past year in a titanic struggle with the large state public university trying to get re-enrolled, and then take the 3 remaining classes needed to get his Bachelor's. Meanwhile DS#1 was finishing his Associate's at the community college and was in the process of applying to the small Christian non-profit a few hours away, where tons of his credits transferred and he'll be able to earn his Bachelor's in 2 years.

 

The difference in administration, what you get for your cost of tuition, quality of actual facilities, and ease of students accessing campus life and all the "extras" on campus has been night-and-day, with the small for-profit coming in far ahead of the large state public U.

 

The last thing to compare is quality of classes -- DS's classes haven't started yet, so we don't know yet about the quality, but we do know all classes are taught by professors, not grad students. DH did say all 3 instructors he had at the local big state U were quite good -- but all 3 were adjuncts and are paid a pittance for the long hours they pour into their classes, and all 3 classes were much larger than they should have been, with a 400-level lit. class having 35 students, when 15-18 should be the maximum at that stage for a discussion-driven senior-level course. Lower division classes at the small for-profit are capped at 30 students, and upper division classes are capped at 15-20 students, depending on the course.

 

At this point, it is sure looking like to us that, depending on the school, for-profit can be a very good thing for the consumer! :)

 

Not trying to be contrary here. Just throwing in some feedback so your post wouldn't be lonely. ;) Warmest regards, Lori D.

[regentrude]

Am I the only one who found the article tedious to read? They used a lot of words to transmit rather little actual information. Anyway, here are a few thoughts:

 

This may be a model for some courses in some disciplines, but won't be generally applicable. You can't teach science this way, for example, because students need to be working in an actual physical lab that is in an actual physical building.

It may be a model for some students, but others need in person interaction to be motivated.

Can a school that has no faculty offices, research labs, community spaces for students, or professors paid to do scholarly work still be called a university?

 

Whatever it is called, I consider the lack of the above mentioned things a problem.

1. Faculty offices. Hm, so I guess they expect their faculty to conduct their classes from home? While this may sound great for flexibility, it is a nightmare for anybody whose home is not an island of peace and calm, but involves children and other family members, which can make productive teaching from home very very difficult. (Ask me how I know). Not providing a work space for the instructor is simply cheap.

(Not a major issue, but an issue nonetheless.)

 

2. Research labs/ professors paid to do scholarly work.

I want my children to be educated by somebody who is not just teaching, but also doing research. I want them to be educated by people who are actual experts  in their field, and not just "educators". Bad idea, and would nix the school for me immediately.

 

3. Community spaces for students. This is IMO a huge problem. Of the "other" aspects of a live college, cameraderie among students is one of the most important factors for student success. While it may be possible to interact even in an online-only situation, it is not the same as live study sessions or chatting over coffee. We see that those of our students are the most successful who are working together in groups - and you can't work out a physics problem together by computer, but need 30 square feet of blackboard.

 

Lastly, the methods are not really new, it is just the technological delivery medium that is new. "Active learning" instead of frontal lecturing has  long been recognized as more effective. I find it important to distinguish between the type of learning activities and the delivery medium; all of  this could also be implemented in a live classroom.

 

I don't see this as the "future of college". As with many such suggestions, it has good aspects that could, and should, be adopted by traditional education. But college is much more than just attending online sessions with specifically designed learning activities.

As an extreme introvert, I need a LOT of time to quietly SOLO read, research, absorb, and THINK before entering into a group discussion setting on a specific subject.

 

Isn't that a separate issue, though?  Presumably, this seminar-style teaching method (just like traditional lecture) has required reading assignments before each session, that would give you the time to personally engage with the material before discussing it with the professor and peers.  It's just with the seminar style (which is an old form of teaching), it is blatantly obvious to everyone if you haven't done the prep work before the seminar, whereas you could "hide" the fact that you hadn't done the reading in a lecture from your professor.

 

And as an introvert, I appreciate the challenges here, but I think an important part of college isn't just internalizing the scholarship, but to be able to discuss and defend it with others.

[Lori D.]

Isn't that a separate issue, though?

 

… And as an introvert, I appreciate the challenges here, but I think an important part of college isn't just internalizing the scholarship, but to be able to discuss and defend it with others.

 

I personally don't see it as a separate issue.

 

I am reacting to the experience described in the first few paragraphs of the article. I love discussion and learn a lot from it. And I do think discussion and defending your views and research was an important part of my college experience, having listened to the lectures and done the readings and formulating responses to those.

 

I think that experience is very different from the aggressive, "instant-messaging" style of constantly-being-put-on-the-spot style described in the article. I would have definitely avoided all college programs that were that competitive and aggressive, even before the addition of the computer technology aspect of the class.

 

Regardless of my own preferred learning style, I think Regentrude raises some real problems if a school were to try and go only this route. I agree with her that, while this technology -- and style of teaching/learning -- certainly has a place, it is NOT a one-size-fits all type of education. Thank goodness! ;)

 

Just my personality and my reaction. :)

I think that experience is very different from the aggressive, "instant-messaging" style of constantly-being-put-on-the-spot style described in the article. I would have definitely avoided all college programs that were that competitive and aggressive, even before the addition of the computer technology aspect of the class.

 

See, I didn't get "competitive and aggressive" from the article, even as hyped-up as the article was, I got that the class was active and participatory.  The teacher asks a question that everyone in turn has to answer.  Seems like good teaching to me.

[Lori D.]

See, I didn't get "competitive and aggressive" from the article, even as hyped-up as the article was, I got that the class was active and participatory.

 

Just differences in perception. :) I couldn't get past the part of being paired up or put in groups by the instructor. ;)

 

I do NOT like group projects or "teams". :::shudder::: In my own college experience, that was busy work at best and a major fail at worst -- I always seemed to end up in a group with slackers or nice-but-clueless people, and it was incredibly frustrating to have part of my grade riding on their (lack of) performance. I far prefer to work quietly away on my own and in my own timing, and then come back at some point when much progress has been made to discuss and workshop with others who are knowledgeable and have valuable experience and insights to share.

 

I can only think of one instance where I have been working on a big project (homeschool careers day event) where working with a partner worked extremely well. We were both extremely competent in complimentary areas, so every year we were able to put together an awesome event. :)

 

Again, just my personal experience, but having to collaborate in college was neither educational nor enjoyable for me. Glad you have had a very different experience, and a different take-away from the article. :)

 

 

…The teacher asks a question that everyone in turn has to answer. Seems like good teaching to me.

 

I agree. A teacher who is a good facilitator makes learning through class interaction not only possible, but enjoyable. :)

[hillfarm]

Interesting read, but definitely not a new idea. My dd just finished 3 semesters of high school via one of the free, online, public schools (Connections Academy). Many of the technologies mentioned are already being used at that level.

 

The whole "instant break out session" thing was common in dd's classes. Unfortunately, her experience tended more toward one overly self-sure person dominating the small group or two of them wasting the whole time arguing over which of their answers to the study question would prevail. IOW, the same thing that could happen IRL around a few desks pulled together in a b/m school.

 

She also had frequent pop quizzes and intermittent "comprehension checks" (which amounted to very short, unannounced quiz questions). Again, nothing really new. The daily "Quick Check" quizzes were kind of a pain, since they often had only 3 or 4 questions, so one wrong answer dropped your quiz grade to a 75% or a 66%. And since these quizzes covered the material the student was just exposed to, there was no time to actually consider any of it or to think about it. Automatic regurgitation was the name of the game. Perhaps the Minerva system would ask deeper questions, but still, without any time to digest the seminar material, I can't see that students would be able to give really insightful answers.

 

All that said, I do think that online education will be a real trend in the future. The cost of a college degree has created a significant backlash for many students, who are definitely interested in the flexibility of online programs that allow them to also work part or full time or deal with family responsibilities. Not to mention the cost savings from not having to commute. Unfortunately, as others have said, I'm not sure that the hands on sciences can be taught very effectively in this manner. There is a huge difference between seeing lab work being done and actually doing it yourself.

 

While it seems to me that the Minerva program is mostly hype, I do think the concept is interesting and bears watching over the next few years. And of course, the ultimate test is whether the Minerva students will be able to take their education out into the world and find suitable jobs and make good contributions to their field. Time will tell.....

[Caroline]

I know a kid who is starting at Minerva this year. Since it was free to the inaugural class, he figured he has nothing to lose. I'll let you all know how it goes. This is a kid who was also accepted at Stanford, but without enough financial aid to be able to afford it.

[Sunshine State Sue]

Meanwhile DS#1 was finishing his Associate's at the community college and was in the process of applying to the small Christian non-profit a few hours away, where tons of his credits transferred and he'll be able to earn his Bachelor's in 2 years.

 

The difference in administration, what you get for your cost of tuition, quality of actual facilities, and ease of students accessing campus life and all the "extras" on campus has been night-and-day, with the small for-profit coming in far ahead of the large state public U.

Lori,  Did you mis-type?

[Lori D.]

Lori,  Did you mis-type?

 

oops… FOR profit. Thanks! :)

[regentrude]

oops… FOR profit. Thanks! :)

 

OK, that makes more sense now... I had been wondering, too.

[NittanyJen]

I'd be really leery of who is teaching those classes.  For the most part, it can't be real professors at accredited U's, because most of them have contractual issues that would prevent them from also teaching at Minerva.  So, no lab space, no office space . . . you aren't looking at people who are doing research or specializing in their fields doing the teaching.  It would also necessarily have to be pretty light on the sciences, which add something to critical thinking that many people lack.

 

I also think they are aiming to be pretty cynical.  I know the article mentioned financial aid for future classes, but really?  Globe hopping for four years . . . that isn't going to be cheap.  They are aiming at upper income international students, not the mainstream.