why universities are in trouble

Thought provoking essay in the New York Review of Books:  The Universities in Trouble  By Andrew Delbanco.

Reviews the impact on the current endowment crisis, coupled with shortfalls in state and federal support for higher education.  Delbanco notes that higher education is increasingly becoming unfordable for a growing portion of talented potential students, with many families left with crippling tuition bills and educational debt.

Public institutions, including community colleges, are increasingly squeezed by increased demand coupled with declining public funding.

Can educational technology provide some of the solutions for some of the financial problems of American Higher Education?   Ideas?  Thoughts? 

It seems important to step out of our boxes and learn how to talk about educational technology within the context of the economic environment. 

A second interesting article (courtesy of my brother at Duke) profiles David Wiley from BYU. Wiley argues that universities are in danger of becoming irrelevant by 2020.  

I'm not so quick to dismiss folks like Wiley.  Having worked an in institution (Encyclopedia Britannica) with a long venerable history that was rapidly displaced by a disruptive competitor (Wikipedia), I am very sensitive to the possibilities that things can change.

Comments

[Anthony Helm]

These are interesting reads, Josh. Thanks for posting them. Together they read as a one-two punch on higher ed, from the finance perspective and from the academic perspective.

One paragraph that stood out in particular was from Jarvik:

"America's colleges and universities, says Wiley, have been acting as if what they offer — access to educational materials, a venue for socializing, the awarding of a credential — can't be obtained anywhere else. By and large, campus-based universities haven't been innovative, he says, because they've been a monopoly."

While I acknowledge the point he's trying to make, I have issues with it as well. In particular, if it just boils down to the "credential," then we are failing on a much larger scale to educate. This has been my criticism of the "business model" approach to higher ed--bring 'em in, teach 'em a trade or specific skill, certify 'em, and send 'em out the door. This is also the problem I have with the "assessment model" that is so often called for by politicians, which usually involves standardized testing. I am often reminded of the the following quotes that I have heard or been asked in my life: "You're studying Spanish. Let's hear you speak some," "You went to college for four years and you can't even operate a [insert machine name here]," "Why do college educated people do such stupid things?" [the latter usually in response to some complex issue involving far too many people or elements].

Likewise, though, I think he is correct that there is a failure to innovate, which may be due to the tenure system, to schools resting on their laurels, or to the greater reliance on research dollars and prestige publishing at the expense of rewarding good teaching. Content alone will not "make" a successful education for the majority of people, nor will a classroom that only presents the same materials. If content is a school's "competitive advantage," then that school is doomed to irrelevancy.

The faculty and administration of our institutions of higher ed really need to grapple with these issues to determine what their true competitive advantage is. Hopefully, I will be a part of that conversation here at Dartmouth.