What does a full-stack university look like?
Part one: ‘deep’ versus ‘wide’ learning
A generation ago, we learned in a very different way. A school teacher might ask — ‘how far is Neptune from Earth?’ Answering this simple question involved something of a journey — not as far as from Earth to Neptune, perhaps, but it might seem like that to an eight-year-old child.
First you had to go to the library — either in town, or at school. Then you had to work out where the books on astronomy would be. Having assembled a collection of books, you’d plough through looking for information about Neptune. Some of the books might cover the planets in detail, but not have information about distances. Some might have charts and maps, but finding that elusive statistic might take the best part of the morning. Eventually, and with a sense of discovery and excitement entirely unknown to today’s students, you’d spot the jackpot and victoriously write it down — somewhere between 4.3 and 4.55 billion kilometres, because both planets are always on the move.
Today, of course, we’re only one click away from a piece of information like that. The journey from Earth to Neptune is much, much shorter than it used to be, and far better illustrated too. But the point of this is that the way we learn has evolved as a result. When older generations went looking, they’d find out all sorts of other things along the way — how many moons Jupiter has; how gravity works; how long Saturn’s year is; what the atmosphere’s like on Mars. It also helps you question assumptions — the false assumption being, that there’s a straightforward answer to the question.
Today’s learners simply don’t experience this process. They can find the information they need quickly, and can learn voraciously and widely, but they don’t develop depth of knowledge from incidental research.
This kind of wide but shallow knowledge is a problem. In today’s highly competitive world, we need the very opposite kind of knowledge to succeed — we need deep, but not wide. And this is at the heart of the ‘full-stack’ concept. In programming, a full-stack developer is someone who can complete tasks at any level of the particular technical stack they work in. In practice, this means being able to work with the hardware, what systems you need, how to code in the required languages, how to keep databases live and accurate, and how to project manage and handle external clients. Consequently, the programmer is likely to have deep, but not wide, knowledge — with core competencies in the area of the stack where they operate most.
The other end of the telescope
What might a full-stack university look like? The key is to remember that deep not wide is replacing the broad scope that traditional providers still think is fit for purpose. Classical providers might offer rich, absorbing education experiences, but the focus is still more on the experience than the career to come. A full-stack approach to education looks rather different. Mike Fishbein, who originated the term ‘full-stack education’ argues that such a provider ‘might not look like a school at all. It could look like an employer, a lender, a school, and/or a recruiter all rolled into one.’ For Fishbein, a full-stack provider might do three particular things to distinguish itself from other universities, whilst benefiting the student and the employer enormously.
1. Hiring. ‘Instead of spending… money on recruiters and still providing training on top of what candidates have already learned, why not skip the recruiter [and] educate someone from scratch. The cost savings in terms of lower wages and/or recruiting fees could outweigh the cost of training. The employee would benefit because they don’t have to pay for college and aren’t crippled by the corresponding student loan debt.’
2. Recruiting. More alignment between what the student is studying, and what the employer wants to see. ‘If employers don’t value [the credential the student gets], the education is nearly worthless.’
3. Lending. The full-stack university could get favourable rates to lend to students on a non-profit basis. ‘Schools could lend to their students with their massive endowments. Employers could waive tuition fees altogether.’
We would argue that, building on this, there are three principal elements to a full-stack university.
1. Diversity of learning objectives. Talent is accredited differently. Rather than the ‘academic first, job second’ approach, we would make practical learning from professional experiences the most important element. In practice, this means bringing people from the workplace, into the classroom. A key component of this is becoming a reflective practitioner — someone who always enquires about their own practices and has a critically reflective mind. For Ryan Craig, author of College Disrupted, this means to ‘develop and deliver specific high-quality educational experiences that produce graduates with capabilities that specific employers desperately want.’
2. Ease of finance. Rather than seeing the student’s financial issues as their own affair, we would like to see more constructive involvement from the provider. (This could be offering lending, as Fishbein suggests.) It means providers must ask themselves the question, are we making it as easy as we can for students to study? What is the ROI for the student? Can the student break even on their investment in two years, five years, ten years?
3. Connecting graduates with employers professionally. This is at the heart of the full stack university principle. Enhanced linkages between what students are learning, and what employers want. Again, the shift of focus in syllabus terms is practically aided by professional intervention. Mentoring, coaching, internships, visiting lecturers from business and action learning projects all contribute powerfully to this.
The key take-out from this is that university should be about the career, not the process. Or to summarise the thinking of Ryan Craig and Mike Fishbein, the purpose of a university is not just to get a good education. The purpose is to get a job.
Part two of this article will be published Friday.
Originally published at https://elu2016.wordpress.com/
Sources listed in part three of this article.
