The Bane of a Residential College

Posted on April 6th, 2012, by 1 Comment

I was somewhat bemused by this comment on MITx (the free and open-access online course offerings that MIT is now making available to tens of thousands around the world) made by the chair of faculty of MIT, Samuel Allen, in a piece he wrote for the MIT Faculty Newsletter. Allen sees the critical issues regarding the program in this way:

A major question about the potential impact of MITx is this: If MITx is wildly successful, what is the future of the residential education experience that has been our mode of teaching for MIT’s entire history? If students can master course materials online for free (or for a modest “credentialing” fee), what incentives would there be for anyone to invest in an expensive residential college education? In short, what will be the “added value” of a residential education that will justify a residential student’s financial investment?

Or, as Steve Kolowich succinctly summarized for a story for Insi

deHigherEd, the looming question for MIT faculty and administrators is: “What if MITx is too successful?” Put that way, this reminds me of the time a relative of mine went to the U.S. Post Office to purchase a large quantity of stamps and the clerk said that he couldn't process the order because he would then be out of stamps ans so would be rendered incapable of providing stamps to other customers. I guess some people feel that they must avoid success like the plague.

In one sense, I think that both faculty and administrators are right to be concerned that a model similar to MITx would prove “too successful,” that is, rendering the residential college model to be, at least for a sizable proportion of students, largely obsolete. After all, the interests of the faculty and administrators are intertwined within the very educational model that MITx conceivably could supplant. While potential students the world over are rejoicing at the opportunity to receive high quality offerings at a dramatically lower price and thus would love to see MITx become “too successful,” the higher ed establishment is understandably a little shaken.

zp8497586rq

  • http://EasyOpinions.blogspot.com Andrew_M_Garland

    The problem with mainstream education is that it is measured by inputs, not outputs, and its product has been protected by anti-descrimination law.

    No one asks what practical difference the input of four years of classes (at $100-$200,000 cost) makes to the student’s ability to produce something. Even if the output is supposed to be “satisfaction with your understanding of life”, that output is not measured.

    Mainstream schools know that they must promise something. They spread the misleading fact that a college degree increases average lifetime earnings by a million dollars, at first glance a 5-10 times return on the investment. This is intellectual fraud, averaging results for the most succesful lawyers, doctors, businessmen, and billionaires into the results for liberal arts majors.

    College tuition is high and climbing because students believe that $1 million fraud. If it were true, then high college costs would be justified. Of course, they are not justified for the vast majority of college students.

    Like an expensive wristwatch, the quality of the education is supposed to be its cost. Mainstream education vigorously opposes cheaper methods of learning and any detailed measure of improved output. There is no research into providing a cheaper, more efficient education, because the credentials of colleges are protected by mistaken discrimination law.

    College is an expensive IQ test

    Our law says that a company cannot give an employment test unless it has been shown to be non-discriminatory in effect, that it doesn’t screen out people of color at a different rate than white people. Schools are exempt from these rules, because they aren’t employing the student, and they claim to be altruistic.

    Employers are prevented from specifying the education and testing which would train for careers at least cost. So, employers don’t create their own tests or use standardized tests. Interviewers talk randomly about whatever they want, using personal judgment to decide if the candidate is “a good match”. This is supposed to be less discriminatory!

Blog Categories

Blog Archive

Blogroll

CCAP Video

Panel 1 of the conference co-hosted by CCAP and the Cato Institute on higher education reform and faculty productivity. For more, visit the Cato website.