Main Nav

Hi all,

This survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZG89YL9  is to collect responses from those who work and study in universities. There are 20 questions, which should take either a few min. or more, depending upon how much you write. 

I'll share the results with those of you who leave your email addresses.
Thanks,
Cathy

Catheryn Cheal, Ph.D.
Assistant Vice President
e-Learning and Instructional Support
Suite 430 Kresge Library
Oakland University
248-370-4566
fax: 248-370-3628

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

OK, I see. I just lazily clicked on the link in your email. I had to cut and past the URL.

  -Jim

From: "Cathy Cheal" <cheal@OAKLAND.EDU>
To: INSTTECH@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:27:19 PM
Subject: [INSTTECH] The Future of Public Universities

Hi all,

This survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZG89YL9  is to collect responses from those who work and study in universities. There are 20 questions, which should take either a few min. or more, depending upon how much you write. 

I'll share the results with those of you who leave your email addresses.
Thanks,
Cathy

Catheryn Cheal, Ph.D.
Assistant Vice President
e-Learning and Instructional Support
Suite 430 Kresge Library
Oakland University
248-370-4566
fax: 248-370-3628

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.



--
James G. Mazoué, Ph.D.
Director, Online Programs
Educational Outreach
169 Purdy/Kresge Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 577-4873
jmazoue@wayne.edu
http://online.wayne.edu/





********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Great project, Cathy.  Doing the survey now.

I just fired up a big project on the future of higher education, actually.  This means all kinds of stuff, like Educause Review columns last year (http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ImaginingtheFutureofHigherEduc/242826), a consulting initiative (http://www.nitle.org/help/futures_practice.php), helping a postdoc think through futures methods (http://scanningthefuture.wordpress.com/), and even running a prediction market Web game (http://markets.nitle.org/markets; try it out!).  It's exciting to do this year, when education is in such a crisis moment!

Thanks so much for the links Bryan! I really appreciate that and will go through them carefully. We're in the position of trying to plan for change for a medium sized public university, so I'm interested both in the reality of the situation as well as people's perceptions of it.
All best,
Cathy

On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Bryan Alexander wrote:

Great project, Cathy.  Doing the survey now.

I just fired up a big project on the future of higher education, actually.  This means all kinds of stuff, like Educause Review columns last year (http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ImaginingtheFutureofHigherEduc/242826), a consulting initiative (http://www.nitle.org/help/futures_practice.php), helping a postdoc think through futures methods (http://scanningthefuture.wordpress.com/), and even running a prediction market Web game (http://markets.nitle.org/markets; try it out!).  It's exciting to do this year, when education is in such a crisis moment!

I think the topic of this Chronicle article, on the growing trend of teaching “trade skills” at liberal arts colleges, holds a lot of promise for a good future direction: an education that is a hybrid of traditional liberal arts “thinking skills” and the kind of “doing skills” Americans have, in large part, moved away from in recent decades.

http://chronicle.com/article/Tools-for-Living/130615/

 

Emily

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Instructional Technologies Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:INSTTECH@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Cathy Cheal
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 8:44 AM
To: INSTTECH@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [INSTTECH] The Future of Public Universities

 

Thanks so much for the links Bryan! I really appreciate that and will go through them carefully. We're in the position of trying to plan for change for a medium sized public university, so I'm interested both in the reality of the situation as well as people's perceptions of it.

All best,

Cathy

 

On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Bryan Alexander wrote:



Great project, Cathy.  Doing the survey now.

I just fired up a big project on the future of higher education, actually.  This means all kinds of stuff, like Educause Review columns last year (http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ImaginingtheFutureofHigherEduc/242826), a consulting initiative (http://www.nitle.org/help/futures_practice.php), helping a postdoc think through futures methods (http://scanningthefuture.wordpress.com/), and even running a prediction market Web game (http://markets.nitle.org/markets; try it out!).  It's exciting to do this year, when education is in such a crisis moment!

Cathy,

For a scary scenario, see "Flipped classes threaten universities and publishers" at http://coredogs.com/article/flipped-classes-threaten-universities-publishers .

Some of the article's predictions are coming true. For example, there are new companies that are cherry picking the most profitable university courses, those that subsidize the rest of campus.

Kieran
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Publishers aren't they only threat in that scenario.  Look what happens to tenure/full-time faculty:

"Replace several Ph.D.-level instructors with one Ph.D.-level coordinator, and a bunch of less expensive tutors and reviewers (reviewers are the people who give feedback)...
 Feedback can be outsourced, to retired teachers, parents working from home, advanced students looking for extra money, ... Not just graduate students...
  Local talent will usually be available for introductory courses, and it will be relatively cheap. "

Kieran, A very interesting article! You could substitute "online learning" for the word flipping in this statement. "If flipping goes mainstream, universities and publishing companies will change. Some will die. That's OK, if it helps students. Jobs will be lost. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't stand in the way of better learning. There'll be winners, too. Universities and publishers that make the change. New companies and institutions that deliver or support flippiness. Taxpayers. Most important of all: students." However, the big problem as I see it, is what happens to basic research if tenured faculty are lost through universities, degree, and programs consolidating and closing down. I doubt if the government is going to pick up the tab through more grants and even if it did, it would more likely fund STEM and professional schools than the humanities. If the arts and humanities and social sciences die as a subject matter for reflection and interpretation through loss of tenured faculty and through lack of institutional support, then we as a people will lose our humanity. Will the public keep these subjects alive in their spare time? It seems like we'll have alot more of that with loss of jobs. k And certainly the models from the changes in the music industry and journalism show that the public are willing to leap in and push out all kinds of content. I suppose this is the argument between Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel Bruns and Keen, Andrew (2007), The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture as applied to universities and their traditional mission of producing democratic, well-educated humanistic citizens. So I'm not so certain that it is OK if some universities die and tenured positions are lost. Will the broader, perhaps more shallow, learning available to all on the Internet be worth it? Can we keep both ways? Cathy Catheryn Cheal, Ph.D. Assistant Vice President e-Learning and Instructional Support Suite 430 Kresge Library Oakland University cheal@oakland.edu 248-370-4566 fax: 248-370-3628
Since we're chatting here about future scenarios, I'd bet Megan McArdle from The Atlantic is on to something in her article Envisioning a Post-Campus America. Summarized below, she envisions: 
http://chronicle.com/article/Candace-Thille/130934/

1. Education will end up being dominated by a few huge incumbents

2. Online education will kill the liberal arts degree.

3. Professors (course developers) will be selected for teaching instead of research brilliance.

4. 95% of tenure-track professors will lose their jobs.

5. The end of universities as research centers.

6. Young job-seekers will need new ways to signal diligence.

7. The economics of graduate school will change substantially.

8. Civil society will have to substitute for the intense friend networks that are built at college.

9. The role of schooling in upward mobility will change.

10. The young will have a much lower financial burden in their 20s.

11. The tutoring industry will boom.

12. If the credentials become valuable, cheating will be a problem. 


Its a brave new world whatever it is. 

Susan




On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Cathy Cheal wrote:
Kieran,
A very interesting article! You could substitute "online learning" for the word flipping in this statement.

"If flipping goes mainstream, universities and publishing companies will change. Some will die. That's OK, if it helps students. Jobs will be lost. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't stand in the way of better learning.
There'll be winners, too. Universities and publishers that make the change. New companies and institutions that deliver or support flippiness. Taxpayers. Most important of all: students."

However, the big problem as I see it, is what happens to basic research if tenured faculty are lost through universities, degree, and programs consolidating and closing down.  I doubt if the government is going to pick up the tab through more grants and even if it did, it would more likely fund STEM and professional schools than the humanities. If the arts and humanities and social sciences die as a subject matter for reflection and interpretation through loss of tenured faculty and through lack of institutional support, then we as a people will lose our humanity. Will the public keep these subjects alive in their spare time? It seems like we'll have alot more of that with loss of jobs. k
And certainly the models from the changes in the music industry and journalism show that the public are willing to leap in and push out all kinds of content. I suppose this is the argument between Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel Bruns and Keen, Andrew (2007), The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture as applied to universities and their traditional mission of producing democratic, well-educated humanistic citizens.

So I'm not so certain that it is OK if some universities die and tenured positions are lost. Will the broader, perhaps more shallow, learning available to all on the Internet be worth it? Can we keep both ways?
Cathy


Catheryn Cheal, Ph.D.
Assistant Vice President
e-Learning and Instructional Support
Suite 430 Kresge Library
Oakland University
cheal@oakland.edu
248-370-4566
fax: 248-370-3628


It's always interesting to see that sort of article. It takes me back to the 70's when I was working on the PLATO computer-based education project... I think you get the implication. There is a lot of inertia in the system. Not that we can't continue to provide hope a place to spring eternal. -- Bruce Carter, Center for Creative Computing University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 On 2/29/12 12:49 PM, "Susan Gautsch" wrote: >Since we're chatting here about future scenarios, I'd bet Megan McArdle >from The Atlantic is on to something in her article Envisioning a >Post-Campus America. Summarized below, she envisions: >http://chronicle.com/article/Candace-Thille/130934/ >1. Education will end up being dominated by a few huge incumbents >2. Online education will kill the liberal arts degree. >3. Professors (course developers) will be selected for teaching instead >of research brilliance. >4. 95% of tenure-track professors will lose their jobs. >5. The end of universities as research centers. >6. Young job-seekers will need new ways to signal diligence. >7. The economics of graduate school will change substantially. >8. Civil society will have to substitute for the intense friend networks >that are built at college. >9. The role of schooling in upward mobility will change. >10. The young will have a much lower financial burden in their 20s. >11. The tutoring industry will boom. >12. If the credentials become valuable, cheating will be a problem. >Its a brave new world whatever it is. >Susan > >On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Cathy Cheal wrote: >Kieran, >A very interesting article! You could substitute "online learning" for >the word flipping in this statement. >"If flipping goes mainstream, universities and publishing companies will >change. Some will die. That's OK, if it helps students. Jobs will be >lost. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't stand in the way of better >learning. >There'll be winners, too. Universities and publishers that make the >change. New companies and institutions that deliver or support >flippiness. Taxpayers. Most important of all: students." >However, the big problem as I see it, is what happens to basic research >if tenured faculty are lost through universities, degree, and programs >consolidating and closing down. I doubt if the government is going to >pick up the tab through more grants and even if it did, it would more >likely fund STEM and professional schools than the humanities. If the >arts and humanities and social sciences die as a subject matter for >reflection and interpretation through loss of tenured faculty and through >lack of institutional support, then we as a people will lose our >humanity. Will the public keep these subjects alive in their spare time? >It seems like we'll have alot more of that with loss of jobs. k >And certainly the models from the changes in the music industry and >journalism show that the public are willing to leap in and push out all >kinds of content. I suppose this is the argument between Blogs, >Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel >Bruns and Keen, Andrew (2007), The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's >Internet Is Killing Our Culture as applied to universities and their >traditional mission of producing democratic, well-educated humanistic >citizens. >So I'm not so certain that it is OK if some universities die and tenured >positions are lost. Will the broader, perhaps more shallow, learning >available to all on the Internet be worth it? Can we keep both ways? > >
Fair enough, Bruce. I must confess I remember those days too. I think the key difference here, however, is:
PLATO was a technological solution looking for a problem to solve. Now we have a serious problem looking desperately for a solution. Sure, one could argue that the way we educated in the 70s was broken (all lecture all the time), but the institutions of higher education were not considered broken, thus no problem. It's different today where the result of institutional inertia may very well be the final failure. If we're lucky, maybe some of the disruptive innovations that replace our inertia-ridden institutions will also improve learning. There's the spring eternal. 



On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Bruce Carter wrote:
It's always interesting to see that sort of article.  It takes me back to
the 70's when I was working on the PLATO computer-based education
project...

I think you get the implication.  There is a lot of inertia in the system.
 Not that we can't continue to provide hope a place to spring eternal.

--
Bruce Carter, Center for Creative Computing
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN  46556


On 2/29/12 12:49 PM, "Susan Gautsch" <susan.gautsch@PEPPERDINE.EDU> wrote:
>Since we're chatting here about future scenarios, I'd bet Megan McArdle
>from The Atlantic is on to something in her article Envisioning a
>Post-Campus America. Summarized below, she envisions:
>http://chronicle.com/article/Candace-Thille/130934/
>1. Education will end up being dominated by a few huge incumbents
>2. Online education will kill the liberal arts degree.
>3. Professors (course developers) will be selected for teaching instead
>of research brilliance.
>4. 95% of tenure-track professors will lose their jobs.
>5. The end of universities as research centers.
>6. Young job-seekers will need new ways to signal diligence.
>7. The economics of graduate school will change substantially.
>8. Civil society will have to substitute for the intense friend networks
>that are built at college.
>9. The role of schooling in upward mobility will change.
>10. The young will have a much lower financial burden in their 20s.
>11. The tutoring industry will boom.
>12. If the credentials become valuable, cheating will be a problem.
>Its a brave new world whatever it is.
>Susan
>
>On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Cathy Cheal  wrote:
>Kieran,
>A very interesting article! You could substitute "online learning" for
>the word flipping in this statement.
>"If flipping goes mainstream, universities and publishing companies will
>change. Some will die. That's OK, if it helps students. Jobs will be
>lost. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't stand in the way of better
>learning.
>There'll be winners, too. Universities and publishers that make the
>change. New companies and institutions that deliver or support
>flippiness. Taxpayers. Most important of all: students."
>However, the big problem as I see it, is what happens to basic research
>if tenured faculty are lost through universities, degree, and programs
>consolidating and closing down.  I doubt if the government is going to
>pick up the tab through more grants and even if it did, it would more
>likely fund STEM and professional schools than the humanities. If the
>arts and humanities and social sciences die as a subject matter for
>reflection and interpretation through loss of tenured faculty and through
>lack of institutional support, then we as a people will lose our
>humanity. Will the public keep these subjects alive in their spare time?
>It seems like we'll have alot more of that with loss of jobs. k
>And certainly the models from the changes in the music industry and
>journalism show that the public are willing to leap in and push out all
>kinds of content. I suppose this is the argument between Blogs,
>Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel
>Bruns and Keen, Andrew (2007), The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's
>Internet Is Killing Our Culture as applied to universities and their
>traditional mission of producing democratic, well-educated humanistic
>citizens.
>So I'm not so certain that it is OK if some universities die and tenured
>positions are lost. Will the broader, perhaps more shallow, learning
>available to all on the Internet be worth it? Can we keep both ways?
>
>
Cathy's point is a vital one.  Academic research is already under serious pressure from other directions: the serials crisis, the monograph's decline, rising anti-academic feeling in the US, to name a few.

Perhaps these factors will coincide.  Fewer tenure-line faculty producing less material means fewer books and journals published, which eases some budgets (not to mention committee time). 
Not that I think this is a good thing.

Cathy,

(Keeping the post boiling. Double, double toil and trouble...)

Maybe there's a difference betwixt research productivity and publishing. IMHO, most of the work published in my field (IS) is not worth the investment of student tuition dollars. E.g., one of my single-author papers was once the fifth most cited paper in the entire field. Perfect methods. But useless - no positive effect on the world. Like that perfect bombing run on the ocean, in Catch 22.

Is the value of employing, say, 10,000 scholars, worth a loss of expertise among millions of Americans? (I can't comment on rest of the world, not knowing their ed systems.)

For me, it's a social justice issue, and I'm on the wrong end of it. Students should not be paying so I can follow my intellectual curiosity. 

However, some social science work is of value, using my subjective sense of "value." There's chewy goodness in cognitive psych, social psych, learning science, moral psych, org behavior, operations management, other fields. 

So, how to keep that work, while at the same time improving the value students get from their time and $ investments? I don't know.

(Fire burn, and caldron bubble...)

Kieran
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Kieran, did you see Mark Bauerline's research about undercited lit scholarship?
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Research-Bust/129930/.