Some interesting links that have come my way:
Who pays the hidden cost of University research? This is specifically focused on the University of California, but I wonder how it plays out here.
Texas students could be required to seek off-campus learning options. Closer to home. I thought the best criticism in the discussion in the article was “why require this when it’s going to happen organically?” I think higher education in general has been too slow in exploiting the options provided by modern communication technologies.
What Google Could Learn From Pixar. via DaringFireball, who highlights this:
Despite an unbroken string of 11 blockbuster films, Catmull regularly says, “Success hides problems.”
Ain’t that the truth. I think the successes we had in the 1990’s hid many of our problems well into this past decade.
Good links. The second article relates to one of the biggest challenges of universities: scaling well. Bill Gates’ comments are also relevant.
I think place-based universities (especially big ones) are good for determining:
1) can you show up
2) …on a regular basis
3) …without us having to hound you about it
4) …for years at a time
5) …and work on what we tell you to work on
6) …even if you don’t always agree with it
This is something that non-place-based universities do not test. If it’s just an education you want, or if you are part of an office-less employer, then 1-4 above are not important. But for most employers (up to now anyway), 1-6 is a pretty fair description of what employment requires that a test of aptitude does not measure.
Seems like a pretty low standard for employment — that list describes people capable of being a body somewhere, without necessarily having much aptitude or energy.
Also, I don’t think universities actually test it very thoroughly. I know of a number of people who did not show up for classes regularly, didn’t necessarily work on what they were told to work on, who nonetheless graduated.