Thursday, August 22, 2013

Why Obama’s Radical Education Plan Could Finally Disrupt College


Why Obama’s Radical Education Plan Could Finally Disrupt College

posted 5 hours ago
Comment
37
37 Comments
3930252680_d7d59697bb_b
For the first time in American history, colleges could be judged on how their graduates perform in the real world and give the private sector a way to compete on a common metric. Later today, President Obama will unveil a new plan to overhaul college ratings, funding requirements and loan repayment, as well as promote innovations in online learning. If the still-vague plan is implemented with teeth, it could lead to a radical overhaul in the educational establishment, since few universities are currently structured to impart job-relevant skills.
Basics Of The Plan
Ostensibly about “college affordability,” Obama’s plan will have four major components (there’s a more thorough summary over at WonkBlog and there’s a copy of the official talking points over at Time):
  • –Overhaul college rankings based on college affordability and graduation outcomes, including loan repayment and changes in tuition. Rankings will take the form of a swanky visual calculator, the College Scorecard.
  • –Tie financial aid and grants to the new ranking by 2018. As of 2010, 82 percent of students were on some type of federal aid, so loan rates could significantly impact the financial incentive to attend some schools.
  • –Promote new online learning innovations that improve student outcomes. The president appears particularly impressed by Massively Open Online Course (MOOC) startups, includingCoursera, which was started by two Stanford computer science teachers and inks deals with major universities to put their classes online for free.
  • –College loan repayment will be capped to percent of earnings, so-called “Pay As You Earn.”
3 Reasons Why This Could Be Incredibly Disruptive
1. MOOCs will hollow out most campuses like the Internet did to libraries
The president’s plan seems particularly fond of experiments at Carnegie Mellon and Arizona State University, where students spent less time in class, improved overall test scores, and lowered costs. There’s a reason why MOOCs are so cheap: schools need less space and fewer teachers.
Coursera has enrolled more than 4.4 million students in 431 courses, at around 40,000 students per course (according to Daphne Koller of Coursera). Video lectures only need to be recorded once and there only needs to be a handful of the world’s best instructors to teach any particular field. Much of the slack from face-to-face professor time is taken up by advanced students who volunteer to tutor their peers, in exchange for prestige and warm fuzzy feelings. In other cases, paid online tutors will help students.
Currently, I’m trying out a math class over at Coursera, and pay tutors over at the website Chegg $15/month to help me solve proofs. I’m not finished yet, but the experience so far has been moderately positive.
Many students will never need to step foot on college campuses again. A significant chunk of professors and lecturers will be out of a job, since colleges will only be able to justify faculty who can pay for their position with research funds.
2. College rankings look much different when comparing output
Graduates from the fanciest Ivy Leagues don’t always have the best life post-college. For instance, when Forbes ranked colleges based on student satisfaction and post-graduate pay, Pomona College ranked No. 2. Berkeley tanked to No. 22 and super-pricey Brown University ($57,000) didn’t even make the top 10 (it was No. 12).
While creating a solid ranking on new outcomes will be difficult, at least it will be based on real-world outcomes.
Most importantly, colleges aren’t designed to prepare students. Most teachers are career academics; they have little desire or ability to teach real-world skills. A professor at the University Of California, Irvine, once told me that most faculty regard teaching as a way to “subsidize” their research. The lack of focus on teaching prompted Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to call vocational learning, “the neglected stepchild of education reform.”
But until now, colleges have not been punished for ignoring their students’ post-graduate lives. Depending on how steeply federal aid is tied to job placement and loan repayment, colleges may have no choice but to restructure for real-life learning
3. A standard for competition between colleges
According to the talking points of Obama’s plan, the White House plans to promote schools that “award credits based on learning, not on seat-time.” Instead of giving credit hours, Southern New Hampshire opened up the first accredited self-paced online university to give a degree based entirely on tests of competency.
Under the old model, we can only correlate degree and job outcomes. We know that students attended a particular college, but we don’t know what they learned. As a result, we have to go largely on name recognition alone.
In a competency-based education world, we’ll have data on exactly what students know when they graduate. Schools will have an incentive to adopt standard measures of competency related to communication skills or computer programming ability. Every student can be judged based on how they score on common tests, rather than if they spent buckets of money attending a household name university.
Now, all of this depends on Congress’s willingness to enact tough requirements on federal aid. There is considerable pressure from higher education political lobbies, especially for-profit colleges, to restrict the government’s ability to release data on college and career performance. But, with some political gumption, college could finally be on its way to being as useful as it should be.
[Image Credit via Flickr (feature) and Flickr (top)]
37 comments
MairtinSteinkamp
MairtinSteinkamp
Some very interesting concepts.

Reading the comments, I suppose the article doesn't seem clear. Many people seem to be getting the impression that the elitist schools will receive tons of financial aid to give to the people who already don't need it. I believe it won't affect the standards of who QUALIFIES for financial aid, meaning the elite will still pay for their own elite education.

The article specifically mentions the concerns of the for-profit institutions, which is who this is most likely aimed at. The truth is that for-profit institutions cost a LOT and crank out a fair number of students, many of whom amount to almost nothing. If I recall correctly, for-profit institutions account for roughly 13% of university students but more than 50% of the United States' student loan forfeitures. The idea would mostly be to cut funding to EXPENSIVE schools who are producing the unemployed.

My big concern: The concept of standardizing skills across universities. You'll end up with the same garbage that exists in public schools--teaching for a standardized test with little legitimate content. Who knows how much of my education was wasted with special "how to perform better on standardized test" classes that were common before exams.

Some post-graduate accountability for universities could be a great thing, but how do you measure this? Liberal Arts, get ready to take a (much needed) blow! 
Dean Blackburn
Dean Blackburn from Facebook
The biggest missing piece is the acknowledgment that the people who most need college education reformed are those who don't fit the traditional mold: working adults who need more school to remain relevant in the workplace. Nothing you do to help the "four years, full time" set is going to have as much impact as helping those who fall OFF the career ladder. It's economically insane to just say "let's wait a generation and just let them die out while we assist the young", because those young workers will also age out, and likely become equally irrelevant as things continue to change.
NicholasLivadas
NicholasLivadas
Great news for Jumpcourse! We're similar to MOOCs but when students finish online at their own pace they're guaranteed real college credit for less than $250. No textbooks, No classrooms.
Dan Sherman
Dan Sherman from Facebook
Just as well see with increasing government involvement in healthcare, they'll use this kind of legislation to control the populace. Why is the government qualified to say Peace Corp program gives you more points but not other social programs... etc? Whenever the government gets involved, the market gets skewed and completely out of whack and it costs way more money in the process. The key to stopping the dramatic rise in education costs is to STOP cheap government loans. When people stop affording college, the prices will come down. Stop artificially pumping money into the system. Not everyone needs to go to college. If you can't afford it, don't go.
DanRuswick
DanRuswick
Many parts of this plan are appealing and much-needed, but allocating aid based upon graduate earnings is a fucking joke. The college with the highest ROI generally elite, expensive private schools. The top income quintile is massively over-represented at these schools, despite the fact that the rich don't need aid for obvious reasons. Moreover, many of these schools, despite having a high nominal return, are comparatively worthless. Studies demonstrate that elite schools have effectively zero return versus cheaper state schools. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322.pdf) People who go to top-25 schools don't make a lot of money because the schools enable them to. Rather, they are already members of the economic elite when they enroll, and the schools merely select for people who already have the capacity to make a lot of money. 
This kind of allocation will free up money for people who don't need it based upon a metric with zero value, while robbing integral public institutions that, although perhaps not the ticket to affluence, nonetheless provide valuable education to those who need it most. Pomona and MIT can't even hold a candle to what many state schools do for the nation.
When I read that future income was going to be considered, I was unsure whether to think this was appalling or just plain comical. 
ahootie
ahootie
This looks more like the government choosing winners and losers than disrupting the bureaucracy. I'd like to see the govt get out of the education business and let students and the market do the disruption. Based on his comments today the result could be the exact opposite of what this article describes.
Wesley Grimes
Wesley Grimes from Facebook
#1) I do not see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution a clause in which the states granted the federal government this power. So good or bad they need to stop even discussing it. I also do not see a place where the executive branch can write legislation. #2) Although I am all for helping promising students who have parents that have not made enough to put them through a good school, and I also understand with the current direction of the political moves being made school as well as cost of living will be significantly increasing unless we alter course dramatically, this is not a good thing. Schools should never be including or excluding people solely based on ability to pay. Yes granted if you cannot pay then you do not just deserve an education so you get it. But, academic promise, personality, character, and drive are what should be the key factors in choosing a student. When these factors have been used to decide on extending an offer to attend school, we then can address the issue of paying for the services rendered and living expenses. The way to motivate educational excellence is reward them for simply that: providing the highest quality education. Whom they offer financial help to or how they handle their financial aid, nor even the demographic they appear to be trending to pull from does not directly affect excellence. However, one could argue that pulling students from the upper class, better educated, more classy homes would lend to creating a better environment from having students whom during the core forming of their personality, and values were exposed to adults whom had strong educations, great careers, worked hard, and displayed all the values we must learn to be successful. They were raised on it. So your likely to be creating a culture of such values in which he families and connections of the students lend to a better alumni association and overall atmosphere, and quality of culture of the student body. And this would be a very valid argument. The main point though is that by basing a schools rating on the number of lower income students they bring in, you encourage schools to focus their efforts on bringing in low income students. Rather than, only focus on providing the best possible atmosphere, culture, and education to raise the future of america. Your also giving an unfair advantage to students who come from lower income families. It is not the students fault their parents made the choices they made to at either end of the spectrum. Therefore the upper class kids should not be sitting around being picked second, simply because a lower class kid would look better for the school rating. It should be a purely academic, personality, drive, and character battle. Kids should not be picked because they are from the hood. That can lead no where positive for the education system.
zachary_levy
zachary_levy
I wonder how a university that tries to teach people to be entrepreneurial would fare in the rankings, or one that produces management for lower-paying charity organizations? I'm expecting not well. It is very hard to capture social and community benefit when looking only at salary.
David Urban
David Urban from Facebook
Destined for failure. They need to change the way courses are taught. Most professors spend a few hours in class and the bulk of their hours doing research. If you move into Finance you get reeducated in your job because the bulk of your coursework is not applicable in the real world. If someone wants to be a trader then they are better off learning computer languages than studying portfolio management classes.
gpan
gpan
So, what exactly do these judging standards look like? How is the combination of grades, progression towards graduation, and post-grad pay going to be weighted? Who decides on the weighting?
If the ranking standards depends in part on post-graduate pay, what about students who deliberately choose their first post-grad careers in sectors that traditionally don't pay as well as others - such as religious missions, volunteer work, Teach For America / Peace Corps, and the like? Will there be special preference given to schools who do or do not encourage students to pursue those sectors?
Who sets these standards? Will it be the Dept of Education? Are they going to be advised by external consultants? Who are these consultants going to be? Are they going to be representatives from The College Board and the makers of the SAT?
Is there going to be a minimum level that the students need to reach in order for schools to get funding? How low will that be set? And what happens if students only consistently meet that minimum?
Will this apply to graduate-level programs, or only undergraduate?
How will you verify that the person taking the exam in the MOOCs is the actual person who sat through the class - or that the person who sat through the class is the person receiving the credit?
With the global level of brand awareness that the incumbent powerhouse universities have, what is the realistic expected level of transference of value to a lower-valued brand that no one else really would rank higher except for the government?
Will these standards evolve over time, as economics, culture, and technology change? Or, will the same system instated in 2015 still be used in 2115? Or is that simply someone else's problem?
ferenstein
ferenstein TechCrunch
@gpan yep, lots of questions. government could royally screw it up. but even if they do it wrong, it still could have a big impact
tom11011
tom11011
There is absolutely nothing in it for politicians so hence nothing will be done.  The only people willing to bribe politicians are the educational institutions that don't want anything to change.  DOA.
ferenstein
ferenstein TechCrunch
@tom11011 don't be so sure. lots of politicians get elected by being leaders in education--taking on unions and such. education is a voting issue
PatrickLui
PatrickLui
Finally someone dare to disrupt bureaucracy! 
Good for AMERICA!!! 
Well done Obama!! 
Other nations should follows, else they will be left behind!!!
VitaminCM
VitaminCM
I have 100% confidence that Obama and this (or any) congress will never ever do anything that helps people (poor or rich), this is a great concept.
It should be pretty easy to enact in a much more streamlined way:
Tell all colleges to drop their tuition by 5% or their students are eligible ZERO financial aid. That's it. If your customers can't get money to buy your product, they will not shop there.
College overpricing will burst harder than the housing and dot.com bubbles combined. There is no money to pay for it.
Mox
Mox
Don't worry it will get lots of push back from the republicans, just because it was suggested by the president.
ddevan
ddevan
If you want to lower the amount of debt students leave school with, eliminate the unnecessary general education requirements.  I have degrees in mechanical and aeronautical engineering.  Why was I required to take woman's studies, political science, and a bunch of other courses that kept me in school longer and didn't help me get a job?
ikjadoon
ikjadoon
 @ddevan So that when election time comes around, at least you'll have some background to make an informed vote, whether the issue is reproductive rights (women's studies) or you're curious what a presidential candidate will be like after election (political science). Or, even if you're solidly planted in your views, it at least gives you some alternative viewpoints you can consider.

Want more information so that you can support your position? Any good general elective course should teach how to conduct evidence-based research.
ddevan
ddevan
@ikjadoon @ddevan - So you are suggesting that is something I should pay for while I attend college to become an engineer?  Considering that all you get at most University is a one sided-liberal point of view, you're argument makes little sense.  Perhaps you are also forgetting political science and sexual education is provided in high school as well.  
Lastly, shouldn't the counter argument apply to english majors and political science?  At least if someone takes physics, math, chemistry, and engineering they learn fundamentals of how the world really works.  Engineers apply their skills to evaluating all situations.  They don't need another woman's studies course in their life costing them money.
ddevan
ddevan
@ikjadoon Or even better require woman studies majors to take computer science so they know how technology works.  You make it sound like people can't educate themselves on issues on their own.  They are in school to learn a skill and get a job.  Quit boring them with unnecessary waste.
ikjadoon
ikjadoon
1) College is too expensive--I'm not refuting that. But, I don't think the general education requirements are where the bloat is; I think "administrator bloat" is a much larger problem (http://bit.ly/16k9A06). Sure, if you cut them all, you'd save plenty of money, but the societal detriments of a population without significant exposure (significant here meaning the 40-50 hours of a class) are greater. In other words, the cost-saving from shedding those courses is not worth it in the long-term. In even simpler terms, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
2) "...something I should pay for while I attend college..." -- you mean, the college you chose. To be clear, some colleges have looser general education requirements and are an option (I think worse, but they're available in some places).

3) "is a one sided-liberal point of view" -- something that needs to be proved. I'm sorry your experience was like that.

4) "political science and sexual education is provided in high school as well" -- but not everyone takes political science. Most colleges offer AP credit (if you were aware of that option). And sexual education in high school? I'd hope no one would try to base their philosophical and moral opinions on the that, lol.

5) "Shouldn't the counter argument apply to English majors..." -- it definitely should! As a biochemistry and molecular biology major, I completely agree.

6) "At least if someone takes physics, math, chemistry, and engineering..." -- oh, so you do agree a balanced education is worthwhile. :D The merits of "hard science" are short-term, but in the long-term, other coursework like philosophy and political science are important.

The lack of strong courses in philosophy and political science probably explain the general public's political awareness! :D
ikjadoon
ikjadoon
Everyone should get exposure of all the departments. As a biochemistry BS, everyone should learn how technology works! :) I'm all for more general education.

"People can't educate themselves" -- but will they? Come on, you were in college once. I don't think 18-22 y/o students have the *best* knowledge of what coursework will be important in the long-term. They probably have a good idea, but not the best.

"They are in school to learn a skill" -> eh. That's a hard argument for a 4-year college. There are technical schools that just teach skills.
ddevan
ddevan
@ikjadoon I haven't said they can't take general education but your attitude of force feeding people information because you feel that you have their best interest in mind and requiring them to pay for it is a little sick.  Thinking you know what is in someone's best interest better than they do is really arrogant.  
Here is the reality.  We need engineers in this country.  We need to get them in and out.  If someone wants to go to school and learn engineering, then let them do it and stay out of their way.  If they want to take GE for fun, let them do it.  When your degree says, Computer Science that doesn't require learning spanish.
Quit infringing on people's right to pursue what they think is best for them.  This is all ridiculous because the whole nation is way to progressive to every let people think for themselves. 
ikjadoon
ikjadoon
@ddevan@ikjadoon"force feeding people information" -> if that's what your college general education requirement really was like, then that's, unfortunately, a terrible class. It shouldn't be like high school, lol.

"Thinking you know what is in someone's best interest better than they do is really arrogant" -- not me. Here's one of many articles:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/why-university-students-need-a-well-rounded-education/article4610406/?page=all

If the evidence showed that making well-rounded students is a waste of time, I'd support it. What evidence do you have for that?

---
Judging from your 2nd and 3rd paragraph--i.e., If your view college is about "get them in and out" and "let them do it and stay out of their way"--you have been seriously misinformed about the purpose of 4-year college.

You should have went to a technical school or if did, your initial comment should be for their expansion, not the degradation of 4-year colleges. Technical schools exist for exactly your type of expectation.

/thread
BrianP
BrianP
@ikjadoon @ddevan If nothing else the 4 year degree should be flipped and more value place on an associates.  Like ddevan suggests take all the core courses for your line of work the 1st couple of years, if at that point you want to enter the workforce then you are on your way.  If you feel like you want to round out your knowledge, take classes in history because it interests you, then hang around for another year or 2 and get that degree.
There shouldn't be a once size fits all but people who do the hiring look for that 4 year degree so they check that box off the list.  I have hired lots of people with no college and they work circles around grads from Ivy league schools.  Everyone is different.  
It is time to bring back apprenticeships and train employees.  Works very well in some European countries still.
At the end of the day people don't want degrees, they want jobs.  I wrote about this a few months back --http://brianpeddle.com/2013/03/01/people-dont-want-degrees/

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.