What will the story be 30 years from now?

[storrsroars]

I know that it seems to be fashionable to turn college credits into fungible widgets that can be consumed anywhere these days, but this makes the mistake that people and businesses consider all colleges to be equal. Much of the business world has become *more* snobby on educational credentials these days. The company that I work for doesn't care that you can get the same substance from an Intro to Microeconomics class whether it's taken at a top tier school, community college or online course. The "brand" of graduating from a top tier school is the selling point as opposed to vocational training - we want people with the combination of intelligence and work ethic that comes from getting a degree from a top tier school.

The very worst offenders of overloading students with debt are NOT traditional universities. Instead, they are the online college credit mills (you can't even call them "diploma mills" since so few people graduate) like the University of Phoenix that charge private school tuition prices for a substandard educational experience. What's even worse is that affluent and educated know this, so they're more competitive about steering their own children to top tier schools than ever. You don't see wealthy people trumpeting the greatness of online education - they're ensuring that their kids go to the schools that give them the best shot at upper income jobs, so the income cycle continues. If you think power centers like Wall Street, Silicon Valley and DC will suddenly start becoming *less* snobby on *where* you went to school, I don't know what to tell you. Meanwhile, the people attending the University of Phoenix are disproportionately the ones that can least afford it, so they're saddled with insane debt without even graduating in most instances.

Too many people have the perception that "online" means "cheaper". That clearly isn't the case (especially if you don't ever graduate).

I figured somebody would bring up Phoenix. That's like having a mobile app that's simply a re-sized version of your website. It's already an obsolete model.

Google "Minerva". This is one model of delivery. Other models are being created. An entire alternative economy will erupt in the next 10-15 years with a focus on post-secondary education - because the profit potential is enormous. It could very well be that the Ivies survive. But will 320+ members of the NCAA, including multiple state schools offering many types of curricula that won't require physical attendance survive?

Check back in 30 years. Let's see who's right.

I ran several internet conferences back in the 90s. I got an early look at a lot of business models. I won some bets, lost some others. I like my odds here.

 

[junglehusky]

CNN did a pretty interesting documentary called the Ivory Tower on the changing landscape of college education, it was available at Redbox and is probably available somewhere online too. It looked at some different settings including landscape of online education contrasting the Cal State system (which contracted a company to run courses at San Jose State but had to pull back because it wasn't working) with some open courses being run at Harvard. And they looked at a lot of other types of colleges and issues... worth renting if you're interested in exploring these issues.

 

[frankthetank]

I figured somebody would bring up Phoenix. That's like having a mobile app that's simply a re-sized version of your website. It's already an obsolete model.

Google "Minerva". This is one model of delivery. Other models are being created. An entire alternative economy will erupt in the next 10-15 years with a focus on post-secondary education - because the profit potential is enormous. It could very well be that the Ivies survive. But will 320+ members of the NCAA, including multiple state schools offering many types of curricula that won't require physical attendance survive?

Check back in 30 years. Let's see who's right.

I ran several internet conferences back in the 90s. I got an early look at a lot of business models. I won some bets, lost some others. I like my odds here.

I agree with the belief that there will be growth in alternative models for higher education. Certainly, there is definitely demand for lower cost access to higher education and jobs where a more expensive traditional on-campus 4-year degree isn't necessary. However, what I disagree with believing that it will somehow become the general rule that people like Peter Thiel believe/want (with only a handful like the Ivies being the exception). Instead, I think we'll likely see a bifurcation in the educational marketplace - a large number of largely traditional institutions (let's say the top 150 or so schools in the US News rankings) whose alums will fill a disproportionate number of the higher income jobs in society, and then the lower tier jobs are filled by attendees/users of alternative models. The P5 athletic programs that we're talking about here are almost entirely within that upper tier of schools. The most at-risk schools are the middle to lower tier schools (especially private ones) that are still charging expensive tuition.

I've read about Minerva before and it's an interesting premise in targeting elite students who are attracted by the lower cost. I don't doubt that there is a subset of students that is willing to try this atmosphere or don't care at all about the trappings of the traditional university. However, I think it's a very wrong assumption that everyone feels this way, particularly the types of students that Minerva is trying to attract (as they're aiming for Ivy-level caliber students).

I'm just speaking for myself - there is NOTHING that I would trade for with respect to my experience in college. I don't consider the social connections that I made there (whether it was through the organizations that I was in, spending countless hours with the people in my freshman year dorm, watching sports, etc.) to be ancillary or frivolous. If anything, that's what made the entire experience *college*. Simply saying that you can check out books from the library or watch online lectures and learn the same material trivializes the entire experience.

Regardless, it's not what I think. The delivery of lower cost educational models is relatively easy - the "input" demand may very well be there if only because students certainly want to reduce education costs. We all know the technology is in place to spread information quickly to disparate locations. However, what matters for anyone attempting to sell these educational models is the output... or maybe more appropriately, the *perception* of that output. That is, are employers going to recognize those graduates as the same quality as those that went to traditional 4-year universities? If the answer is no, then all of the lower cost input in the world isn't going to convince parents (who are the ones that *really* need to be sold) to think that attending online classes is going to substitute for going to Harvard (or UConn or your typical state university, for that matter). (To be sure, I completely understand that it may depend upon the profession. An employer that wants a pure coder may very well just care about a person getting some type of online technical certification without regard to where he/she went to college. An employer that needs people with a higher level ability to manage a broader scope of issues is not going to look at it the same way.)

 

[Kolumbo]

How many jobs/functions performed here 15 years ago are performed in India today? How many current jobs will be shipped overseas in the next 15 years? The landscape will change drastically, kids are already making greater use of community colleges before going to universities, the whole system will continue to change. Between these temperatures and taxes, I think the CT population in 15 years will be about about 112.
I do believe that for many liberal arts, business, and other less technical degrees, people will realize that $100k plus is just too steep.

 

[storrsroars]

I'm just speaking for myself - there is NOTHING that I would trade for with respect to my experience in college. I don't consider the social connections that I made there (whether it was through the organizations that I was in, spending countless hours with the people in my freshman year dorm, watching sports, etc.) to be ancillary or frivolous. If anything, that's what made the entire experience *college*. Simply saying that you can check out books from the library or watch online lectures and learn the same material trivializes the entire experience.

Regardless, it's not what I think. The delivery of lower cost educational models is relatively easy - the "input" demand may very well be there if only because students certainly want to reduce education costs. We all know the technology is in place to spread information quickly to disparate locations. However, what matters for anyone attempting to sell these educational models is the output... or maybe more appropriately, the *perception* of that output. That is, are employers going to recognize those graduates as the same quality as those that went to traditional 4-year universities? If the answer is no, then all of the lower cost input in the world isn't going to convince parents (who are the ones that *really* need to be sold) to think that attending online classes is going to substitute for going to Harvard (or UConn or your typical state university, for that matter). (To be sure, I completely understand that it may depend upon the profession. An employer that wants a pure coder may very well just care about a person getting some type of online technical certification without regard to where he/she went to college. An employer that needs people with a higher level ability to manage a broader scope of issues is not going to look at it the same way.)

What's driving the impetus to design a driverless car? Is it traffic safety? Or, given Apple's and Google's interest in those vehicles, more free time to be connected (and served advertising as well as content).

We're headed to a place where we're wired 100% of the time. It's already difficult to keep students off screens in class. That's only going to get harder. They learn and process information differently than we did. And once screens are become fully integrated with curricula, why a physical building?

You know that part in the Matrix where Carrie Moss has a set of instructions for flying a helicopter sent to her? While that may be a stretch, something like that is coming via some future iteration of Google Glass for many real-life (and career) applications. So the question is, how many professions will really need a learning environment with a campus and buildings?

I see one potential future being F500 businesses investing more in recruiting pre-college and offering scholarships to universities of the business' choice, not the students'. The CIA already does this to some extent.

I graduated UConn in the late 70s. I went to a branch campus for two years because I couldn't afford room & board and had to work nights and weekends. It was not a traditional "college experience" (well, except for Friday night mixers). Yet most of my lifelong college friends came from there, not Storrs. I mention that I see no reason that "physical" attendance can't be better distributed on a local level instead of a main campus once interactive education becomes legitimized and widely adopted.

Where content used to be king, context is assuming power. I can't pretend to know what it's like to have grown up texting and living on SnapChat. But I do know today's kids make friends and build networks significantly differently than we did 40 years ago. And the education model has to adapt in order to remain relevant.

I just don't see college sports as we know it surviving that disintermediation.

 

[whaler11]

The biggest obstacle for these alternate delivery systems is that it isn't only what happens in the classroom that has value.

The life experience and alumni networks are probably more valuable. It's hard to see the demand for the college experience not existing for those that can afford it or who don't sweat the loans.

 

[whaler11]

Grand Canyon is for-profit and their basketball team is in second place in the WAC, plays in a great arena and is coached by an NBA star.

At least one alternate delivery system sees some value in basketball at least.

 

[Calamitous]

I had no idea of what schools were land grant and which were not...surprised me to find that Michigan was not..nor South Carolina...Michigan State and Clemson are...Alabama is not, Auburn is..Oregon is not, Oregon State is...Oklahoma is not, OK State is...

Clemson is, but South Carolina acts and feels more like the Land Grant for their state. I feel like Clemson is trying too banish their LG true roots. The more progressive my school gets, the farther away from a true Land Grant we get. There are only a few handful of universities that hold true to the LG mission.

 

[Seaa Blue]

I had no idea of what schools were land grant and which were not...surprised me to find that Michigan was not..nor South Carolina...Michigan State and Clemson are...Alabama is not, Auburn is..Oregon is not, Oregon State is...Oklahoma is not, OK State is...

Michigan was founded 40 years before the first land grant - Michigan State.