Higher Education Models for Survival

Posted on September 30, 2012June 2, 2014 by David C. Brake

In my last blog, I talked about some of the challenges higher education institutions face to be sustainable. Of course no one has all the answers, but I think it’s important to start asking questions and begin thinking about some of these things. I keep hearing the face of education is changing, but will the consequences be disastrous for American Universities? If so, how will that affect the rest of us, and will it change what learning means? Will those universities that make it through the next decade do so by engaging new and potential students in new ways? Is it true that kids will need more convincing of the advantages when departing from their money and taking on new debt becomes a harder sell? (Is it true that I ask too many questions?)

By the way, for anyone who thinks I am spreading unnecessary gloom & doom about the state of higher education financials (or watering it down), here is a more emphatic economic viewpoint here: colleges that will be screwed when the student loan bubble pops, and for an extreme student perspective, try www.uncollege.org.

Meanwhile, I am going to jot down some thoughts about some of the major changes already taking place in response to the pressures burdening higher education. Some examples to explore are: free courses, grassroots education, and online universities. Additionally, I will mention a few other things that universities are doing to adapt, overcome, and survive.

Is it Socialism, or a Techno-Cultural Revolution?

So why should a fresh high school graduate go into debt when they can take free high level courses offered by high profile universities like MIT, Oxford, and Berkley? Why should they struggle to stay awake in endless lectures when they can take the class on their own terms? One answer might be for the credentials, but here are two key facts:

The perception of a college diploma has done a complete one-eighty in the minds of some in the millennial generation from their grandparent’s day. Universities have to shift their focus and what they have to offer, or they may wither on the vine of progression.

To make things even more competitive for universities, online colleges are gaining momentum, and credibility. They come at a fraction of the price, although as of yet there is still no legislation to protect students from predatory private loan lending. They do seem to be effective for some applications, even though all the trimmings have been shaved away.

No dorms, no sports, no walking to and from class. They’ve got archived classes, live and interactive classes through webinars, 24/7 tech, and possibly tutoring support, as well as virtual advising. An education in the palm of your hand? Perhaps, if you can tune out everything else around you and pay attention.

The direction that education is going with ebooks, mobile technology, and virtual reality is providing some interesting options as education is being organically socialized through technology.

Traditional Education Plays Along

If students do opt to pay for a university, who will they choose and why? Before answering this rhetorical question, I want to mention a simple truth I just came across that I found interesting. I was previously unaware of this. Apparently, statistics show the male participation rate in the workforce is at an all time low in America, while the ladies are enjoying their highest participation rate in US history. Male dominated industrialism is fading away, and there isn’t enough money floating around the service sector. Where have these guys got to turn?

In the last few days, the world has seen unprecedented riots in both Spain and Greece in response to basically one thing: unemployment. They’ve got millions of millennials with no job prospects. If any of them have access to a university, they may choose the one that convinces them it can maximize the value of their education, while minimizing investment risk and overall costs.

What Colleges Are Offering

Collaborative Social Value
High Job Placement Rates
Educations that Follow Industry Trends
Social Media Access and Integration

Many people may want jobs, but most desire full-fledged careers and they’ll likely pick the establishments that can prove they’ll deliver. To add to the scrutiny they face from students, cash strapped state and federal accreditation agencies are coming down hard as well.

With low job placement rates, colleges could lose a big part of the whole can of worms. They can have their accreditation stripped away, the ability to offer financial aid taken away, or have their doors shuttered for good. Social Darwinism seems to be taking over the educational system, and high income success rates are an important niche available to exploit.

In response, companies like Mach Interview are springing up to assist universities with higher job placement rates. Through consultation and determined methodologies, they are helping them turn things around using things like:

Online Career Profiles & Portfolios for Students
Special Niche/Industry Specific Software
Interactive Job Placement Curriculums
Working and Networking Directly with Recruiters during school.

As far as national trends go, for women the biggest push in the last four or five years has been the medical and nursing field. For better or worse, Healthcare in general in response to the aging boomer generation has manifested all kinds of localized small universities like Devry that try to cater especially to them.

For men (also for better or worse), the workforce seems to be going virtual. Our advertising tells men to join the military, learn a specific craft, or get behind a computer screen. Getting a degree in History, Literature, or General Studies isn’t pushed as hard anymore. If they choose to enter a university to pursue fields within the math and science categories, it is assumed they want curriculum tailored for a certain career path.

Where the Learning Curve Ends

Globalism, automation, nanotechnology, and virtual intelligence are changing what it means to be educated. This is happening as the collapse of old systems causes a reorganizing of the perception of work and education. Many things can be self taught or taught through peer to peer learning, universities are becoming more like clubs with social networking streams, and grassroots education is picking up steam. People are simply coming together and teaching one another. They are buying and selling quasi black market educations amidst a jobless recovery and a cashless society.

“Why pay for a class when you can download an extensive ebook independently published for free by a laid off professor on any subject for as little as a dollar?”

Plenty of universities will undoubtedly survive and live on. They will adapt to trends, make job placement rates a priority, and market the success stories that emanate from the social interaction that only comes from learning together on a campus. This is fair, and children and parents will always admire a classroom education and credentials, but will that mean the same thing as it once did? Perhaps more importantly, should it?

Clash of the Titans: Online vs Classroom Learning

Posted on September 9, 2012June 2, 2014 by David C. Brake

Welcome, my name is David C. Brake. I consider myself one of those people who feels like they have lived “many lives.” I have been a musician, recording artist, entertainer comedian, manager, teacher, business owner, startup founder, husband and father–and a smart-aleck throughout. However self assessments are always biased, so here are some examples for you to draw your own conclusions:

The Smart-Aleck

At one point in grade school, my math teacher noticed that one of my test scores was not up with the rest of my subjects. She pulled me aside, and asked what I wanted to be when I grew up. Although I appreciated that she was concerned, I also knew what she was trying to do. I told her I wanted to be an astronaut, and she replied that I would need to know a lot of math for that vocation, so I should put forth more effort in my studies moving forward to reach that goal. I replied that if that was the case, I no longer wish to be an astronaut, and I would appreciate if she could let me know what other occupations were math intensive so that I could make sure to avoid them in the future. (She called my parents.)

Fast forward to the smart-aleck adult. Continuing to make my case, below are some self-quotes that I found amusing, but the recipients at the time did not:

“I am considered an expert on most things that I’m not qualified to talk about.”

“If you look around and see you are the only one working for free, reassess the priorities of your co-workers.”

“If you knew what he really thought, he wouldn’t be a politician.”

“If you don’t believe in Jesus, I will kill you. Does anyone else find this statement ironic?”

And last but not least:

“People who get their degrees while they sit around in their underwear are either really smart, or not worth hiring.”

And it’s this one that I want to talk about.

When I said that, it was in reference to online learning. Unfortunately, the proponent of online learning to whom I was speaking did not find it amusing, and for some reason his response brought back memories of my “astronaut talk” in grade school. He came back with, “Is the guy who pays a quarter of a million dollars for his degree smarter than the guy who makes a quarter of a million dollars without one?” I thought about this. Was I smarter to avoid something I didn’t enjoy, or would it have been more intelligent to put more time and effort into grade school math? Everything, including the consequences involved, really depends on the objective.

There was a time in my life when all I wanted was to make a great salary going on stage and playing music for three hours a night. After actually doing it for a while, that objective changed and I had new goals, but at the time I felt that it would have been foolish to obtain a degree which would not have brought me any closer to that objective.

While I can see arguments (and even agree sometimes) that online learning is alienating or closer to research https://chronicle.com/article/article-content/133177/ or that classroom learning kills creativity https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson, I think maybe the battle should be less of a battle and more of a conversation about objectives. If you throw in all variables, I believe often times it really is what you make of it. The best classroom teachers don’t stifle creativity with a curriculum, they try to find a way to inspire it (albeit sometimes in spite of the system)—and let’s not forget that in its quintessence, students in a school can also interact and inspire each other to create. Unfortunately, Sir Ken Robinson (see the link above) is also right that too often that quintessence is left unrealized.

As for online learning, while it may not be optimum in some situations, in others it can be very effective—and in areas where nothing else is available, one could easily argue it is much better than the alternative of having no one to turn to for guidance. Yes, proponents of online learning will say there are many who have benefitted, and there is no doubt that there are also many who stand to benefit. Let’s hear what Bill Gates has to say on the subject. https://www.dailytech.com/Bill+Gates (Haha–how’s that for a segue? I actually agree with much of his argument though, and even though he is selling software, projects like Khan Academy and DotLRN are a brilliant success thanks in no small part to his help.)

Maybe what’s really interesting now at this time in history is the fact that soon online vs classroom learning may not need to be a choice. Enter Coursera: now you can even take Ivy League classes while you sit around in your underwear—at no cost to you. https://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/cheaper-than-harvard-ivy-league Interestingly (and not coincidentally), although it is the same coursework given and graded by the same professors, the classes are apparently not accredited. This is a point of contention raised by some of the students. (“What do you expect for free?” says the University… “Not much in this country,” says the world traveler…)

The point is that no one method of learning is “better” than another, but rather that learning should be judged by what is most effective and what is available for each individual at any given time. And that’s where LRNGO.com comes in, with an idea that’s been floating around in one form or another as far back as 1971. en.wikipedia.org/Deschooling_Society At the end of the day, the truth of the matter is that classroom and individual learning do not need to be mutually exclusive any more than online and physical, or instruction and research. Rather, there will (and should) be more choices available for each and everyone’s needs and applications. In short, it is what you make of it, and that’s probably something we can all agree on—even if you’re a smart-aleck.

Infinite Possibilities/One Idea

Posted on August 27, 2012June 2, 2014 by David C. Brake

If you’re reading this blog, you’ve probably noticed that it is attached to a website, and that the website is a collection of articles. I know what you’re thinking. Why would a website that is a collection of articles need a blog? Why would anyone read the articles instead of the blog, or read the blog instead of the articles?? What are you trying to do here??? Why do you need so many question marks???? Well you deserve an explanation—so here it is.

In the 21^st century, I believe the development of learning platforms and grids that help enable people to find any source of knowledge or skill and to connect with each other through learning paradigms is inevitable. Furthermore, I believe that a unique focus on social learning solutions will eventually help to redefine the global education industry, the 2^nd largest industry in the world. The new technology-based social paradigm will appeal to the primary and supplemental needs of not just traditional teachers and learners, but to all people who seek assistance for knowledge and training in any situation to achieve their personal or professional goals.

For these purposes, the word “teacher” will mean not only instructors in classroom settings or with credentials of all levels and experience, but also “tutors,” “coaches,” and any individual with a skill, knowledge or training that they have acquired and would like to impart. With the progression of technology that connects us all and increased access, I believe the ultimate scope and potential of this user base will continue to grow indefinitely.

The vision of LRNGO is to create a “learning market,” a wide open social learning space on the internet that allows any potential user to find another who can teach them anything they desire to learn. Not just online, but face to face in the real world. Education (meaning not just research learning or “teaching yourself,” but learning from others) will no longer be confined to learning in groups, classrooms, or institutions, from which many are excluded. Anyone can find a source to learn anything they want or need at any time that is desirable, at any age or stage in their lives, wherever they are, and where cost may no longer be an issue.

This idea is based on two premises. First, that at any given time in a person’s life, there is a skill that he or she would like to develop or improve upon, as well as knowledge that he or she has that can be taught. Second, as individuals increasingly see opportunities through new business models, individuals in both learning and teaching roles (teachers and students) will start thinking about learning in terms of transactions and realize that knowledge is a commodity, and “everything is negotiable.”

The move to social learning space can be expedited in part by a geographically searchable “mega-directory” website of all individuals who wish to be included, showing their skills and all level and knowledge of subjects that is completely open to the public, but is NOT limited to online learning. The learning space will be a “marketplace” that is divided into 3 basic tiers, and each of the 3 tiers can be seen as a time/cost trade-off.

At the top tier, there would be an optional service for those who don’t have time to find someone to teach what they need, but prefer to spend money to hire someone or a trusted brand/entity to facilitate the entire process for them to take care of any learning needs they may have. They can pay a concierge service or person to help make the right match with the right teacher at the right time and place of their choosing, and schedule any education or instruction program around their own valuable time. (Of course, there are many services already doing this, and it’s not irrelevant that the global private tutoring market is projected by GIA to exceed $100 billion in the next five years.)

The middle tier is a listing of everyone in the world who wants to teach what they know. Everyone is free to publicly browse and search this directory, and users will be quickly and conveniently searchable both by subject and location. Users will create a public profile listing with as much or as little information as they are comfortable with showing, and will be able to be contacted directly through or outside of the website (they can choose whether anonymously or not).

Finally, where money is less of an option, there is a barter or trade system. For those who don’t want to spend or don’t have money (such as college students), the idea is to “trade” an expertise of theirs in exchange for help or instruction in another subject. This can be thought of loosely as a time bank barter system.

Revenue can be generated through…ah what the heck–let’s make it free. 🙂

In the next two years, the social learning market will be at the forefront of a new systemic movement toward open education. Stick around. This caterpillar website is about to turn into a butterfly.

(Supporting documents: “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age” by George Siemens, Hacking Education Conference Transcript 3/6/2009, “Google U” by Jeff Jarvis, “DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education” by Anya Kamenetz)