Book Review: The End of College
Recently, I finished Kevin Carey’s “The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere.” This book generated a lot of discussion when it was published in April 2015, and I can see why. While I agreed with a lot of his points, it brought up questions that I think need answers. I don’t have all of the answers, but I do think the concepts are worth exploring.
A Quick Summary
Carey, the director of the Education Policy Program at the nonprofit organization New America, takes a broad look at the history of college in the United States. From its origins as primarily a training ground for ministers, drawing students from the upper classes, to becoming a ticket to prosperity for the middle class to the current digital revolution, Carey traces how college has meant different things in different eras.
Then, he takes a look at what technology is doing to shape the future of education. His premise is that currently, we have a hybrid educational system, where colleges combine being both research and pedagogical institutions; this model means that teaching is not a focus and is not necessarily done well. Technology, he says, will allow institutions to separate these two functions. Content can be delivered to a large number of people easily, so the focus can shift to how to deliver that content effectively, while other parts of the institution can focus on conducting research.
More boldly, Carey predicts what he calls the “University of Everywhere.” Learning, he argues, is a continuum that lasts throughout a person’s life. Especially as technology changes rapidly, new skills need to be acquired all the time. This is true in my own life — my last formal education was more than a decade ago, and yet I have learned a lot of new skills since then. Even now, I’m teaching myself coding. Carey says, then, that the new model of college will not focus on the earning of a degree, but will instead provide a portfolio of education that students can use to prove competencies throughout their life.
While Carey presents provocative ideas, he raises more questions than he answers.
Do we literally get rid of colleges?
According to Carey, the advent of technology will lead to multiple modes of delivery. Much as the spiritual awakening in the 19th century led to the establishment of churches of all denominations, college too will become easier to establish and tailored to more specific audiences. He envisions thousands of institutions popping up to suit every kind of learner.
Although I see his point, I actually do not ever see big universities going away any time soon. The upper strata of colleges have a brand identity that will serve them well in the future. These brand identities take different forms, from being academically prestigious (such as the Ivy Leagues) to having a fanatical sports following (the University of Kentucky immediately springs to mind!). I think those schools that have a large footprint in the market will continue to provide what we think of as a “traditional” educational experience. What I do think will happen, though, is that the smaller colleges without a strong identity will either have to adapt, or will disappear.
By adapting, what I mean is that these lesser known colleges will have to identify one thing they do well and focus very clearly on that. For example, the University of Minnesota Rochester is taking advantage of its proximity and access to the Mayo Clinic to focus very specifically on healthcare degrees. UMR only offers two undergraduate degrees: a B.S. in Health Sciences and a B.S. in Health Professions. It does not offer luxurious dorms, have sports teams, or encourage boosterism. What it does is prepare students with specific skills for an in-demand industry. I think this kind of focused, vocational college will survive.
A focus on effective teaching also will become increasingly important. The Minerva Project is already exploring this concept. The for-profit company, which says it is aiming to create a university for the 21st century, offers academic programs entirely online, with professors and students from around the globe. Students gather in international locations and engage with each other, but learn entirely online. There is no research, there is no permanent campus; instead, the focus is on building a vibrant, global community with rigorous academic standards. And just recently, MIT dean Christine Ortiz announced plans to launch a university designed for today’s needs, with today’s technology. This university, she says, will have no majors, lectures, or classrooms, but will focus instead on preparing students for the 21st century. This is the first attempt to radically reinvent the university from a non-profit perspective, and while this venture is so new it doesn’t even have funding yet, I will be watching with interest to see how it fares.
How can we certify soft skills?
I talk a lot about vocational education, and I do think our colleges do a poor job of giving students the skills they need for specific careers. But I also believe in the value of a liberal arts education. Learning how to think critically, write well, research thoroughly and engage with a community of ideas are all valuable lessons. I know when I am hiring someone, while I certainly want them to have the knowledge to do the job, that knowledge can be learned. The softer skills are harder to teach, and I think that is a significant benefit of the traditional liberal arts education.
Currently, when we talk about MOOCs, nanodegrees, badges, and other forms of disruptive education, those programs tend to focus on specific information that can be taught and measured. A bootcamp can teach you how to code in 12 weeks, for example, and that is measurable through tests, projects and the simple expedient of asking someone to code something and seeing how well they do.
Proving competency in soft skills is more difficult, and also a harder sell to students. “You will learn how to think critically” is less appealing than “You will gain the specific skill you need for a job,” and also harder to measure. That being said, I do think it’s possible to develop a program for this and I anticipate it will happen sooner rather than later.
When will we start to see lower costs?
Here is where Carey and I differ. My background is business, and I strongly believe that the distortion of the free market that comes from government-backed student loans is falsely inflating tuition. This is an unsustainable model, and one that I think needs to change. Technology, from online education to machine grading to artificial intelligence and more, is changing education so that it is widely available and could, theoretically, be offered for free. When will we see this start to translate into lower costs and better outcomes? I argue that until we see incentives for colleges and universities to do more for less, the status quo will remain. Carey seems to think that MOOCs prove that education will become free — I think the MOOC experiment showed us that brand is a significant factor in how education is perceived. The content created by MOOCs was considered valuable in part because it came from such prestigious universities. But even then, since MOOCs offer no college credit, they have limited value.
I think college will only cost less when accreditors, the government, and colleges work together to consciously create a system that rewards outcomes and lower costs, whether that is through not accrediting those institutions that cannot prove outcomes or tying financial aid to outcomes. I do not think this will be an easy solution, nor do I think it will be painless. I do think, however, that it is inevitable, and I encourage colleges and universities to begin preparing for this outcome.
