The National Journal Policy Summit hosted industry leaders, labor and workforce experts, and advocacy groups to discuss the future of higher education in the US--given our shifting economy and the changing models of post-secondary degrees. The summit, held on July 10, 2013, was underwritten by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Host Dan Greenstein and keynote speaker Robert Shireman, Executive Director, California Competes, gave a rousing address, summarized below. In his introductory comments, Dan Greenstein of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation described the state of crisis in which the US education system has found itself. Low US education rankings, wage disparity between high school graduates and college graduates, mounting student debt, etc all are continuing issues. Furthermore, the US needs credentialed citizens to remain a leading power in the world. You've all heard the numbers so let's skip to the problem. As Mr. Greenstein sees it, the problem is not the productivity--it's the product.
What does that mean? Today's students come from lower income families, are working full time jobs, have families to support, and do not expect to graduate in four years. The higher education system is not set to meet the needs of the new student.
Robert Shireman of California Competes elaborated on the situation by comparing education to exercise. Most need to go to the gym to exercise. You need the motivation, the community to motivate you.
Working out at home doesn't happen, he notes. You buy the video tapes and the equipment; then it sits there. You can view MOOCS in the same light. Convenience is not the barrier to education. We have libraries and the internet. Knowledge is available for free. Yet, people still need to go to college. A residential college is like an extreme gym “ designed to counteract the natural tendency toward sloth.
The issue, as Mr. Shireman sees it, is one cannot assure learning is actually happening at colleges and universities. You can tell if someone is working out at a gym or slacking. You can't in a classroom because the exercise┬" is lecture and regurgitation. Where is the learning┬" happening? The best teachers are like great personal trainers; they induce students to do more.
This is where MOOCS could be useful. They can force professors to step up their game in class instruction. Look, we can get lectures here. What are you doing in class to really teach/challenge me?┬" The good professor forces critical thinking and personalizes teaching. That's something that's missing in a MOOC course.
One solution Mr.Shireman offers is removing professor rating sites that are counterproductive to rigorous courses (i.e. courses with easier workloads tend to have higher ranking professors) and replacing them with an independent body evaluating course rigor, to include MOOCS. This forces professors who are phoning it in to improve their classes while providing an opportunity to recommend MOOC transfer credit if it is found that an online course is equivalent to an on campus course.
Look to future issues of Connect for more ideas from the summit.