Higher education, in fact education in general, is frequently taken to task
for failing to use information technology to reduce the cost and improve the
quality of learning. These critics ñknowî it should happen because that is
their experience in other enterprises where infusions of technology appear
to drive down prices while product quality improves.
At the same time, these critics lament the rise in class sizes and long for
the return of the 20:1 student/teacher ratio. What is generally overlooked
is the displacement that accompanies technology infusions. Increases in
productivity as a result of technology introduction come at the expense of
personal mediation.
If we continue to link the socialization and learning activities of our
institutions we will be forever mired in this dilemma. Disaggregation
applies not so much to the technology itself, but rather to the work and
recreation processes within which the technology is embedded. This process
of disaggregation has contributed to the rapid pace of innovation by
disassembling processes into their constituent parts and opening new niche
markets.
Much of the genius of the industrial age was built on vertical integration,
process aggregation and an explicit policy of internal cross subsidy.
Products brought to the industrial age marketplace were embedded in total
service repertoires where the public had only the opportunity to purchase
the full service, not select pieces from different vendors. For example,
this strategy of delivering ñtelephoneî service first created, then
inhibited the marketplace for telephony. The 1960s and 70s are replete with
examples of good technological ideas that either died or remained nascent as
they attempted to break through the aggregation of a whole series of
products into a total telephone service.
To permit the disaggregation of a total service would lay open the
potentially profitable sub-products to ñcherry pickingî competition while
the primary service provider remained responsible for the likely
unprofitable sub-products. Aggregating the lot into a service suite
permitted the profitable sub-products to cross-subsidize those that were
not. This reasoning frequently manifested itself in the economic idea of
ñnatural monopoly.î
The information age has given these ideas a swift kick in the seat of their
pants. It is not clear that there is any such thing as a ñnatural monopolyî
when speaking of service suites that are built on information technology.
Recent history suggests that the ñcherry pickersî have been the most
innovative product creators as well as primarily responsible for the
dramatically decreasing price of the technology itself. Open architectures
have been driven both by niche marketers and the consumer.
There are still a few arenas in our society that have not yielded to the new
dynamic of the information age„health care and education being the two most
prominent examples. In the education arena there are few counter examples,
but these exceptions tend to make the rule.
In higher education, the college or university aggregates a whole series of
products„credentials, learning, lodging, recreation, socialization, and a
host of others. Some of the more ñperipheralî such as operating dining
halls, book stores and residence halls have given way to external
competition as institutions have become more focused on costs and the
corresponding charge that must be levied upon students. They have similarly
permitted a higher degree of differentiation/disaggregation by permitting
students to purchase partial service suites rather than the ñall or nothingî
approach common two decades ago.
The restructuring of higher education to complement the information age will
require some significant additional disaggregation. In particular, to make
new progress in teaching and learning, we need to find a way to disaggregate
learning and socialization. Both are important issues for society, both are
useful endeavors for higher education, but they are separate issues. This is
clearly apparent when we consider that over half of our current students are
not in the 18-24 year old age cohort.
The aggregation of learning and socialization is an even greater problem in
K-12 and is likely the reason that real change occasioned by information
technology is so difficult to effect. The primary and secondary education
systems in the U.S. have become purveyors of all sorts of socially
interesting and useful programs which have nothing to do with learning. Most
of the socialization issues in higher education are, on the other hand, self
imposed.
Higher education has the capability to separate these issues and make some
significant strides in improving the way students learn.
These improvements need not come at the expense of socialization when
socialization is an important aspect of a student's educational experience.
They are not likely to come so long as we continue to aggregate learning and
socialization in a total service suite. If we do not make this distinction
ourselves, the marketplace surely will as competition always drives out
cross-subsidies.
© 1995 Educom.