Who else thinks this sounds familiar?
America’s colleges and universities, says Wiley, have been acting as if what they offer — access to educational materials, a venue for socializing, the awarding of a credential — can’t be obtained anywhere else. By and large, campus-based universities haven’t been innovative, he says, because they’ve been a monopoly.
If you’d wanted to be really disruptive, you’d design the rapid accreditation system that offers more variable certification.
Rather than regarding this as disruptive, the emergence of distance/virtual learning is merely becoming another competitive pathway to an education. The continued existence of the traditional university education may diminish yet be available for those types that need such structure or benefit from the direct interactions available. Perhaps hybrid models are the ideal. Regardles, the size and number of all of these avenues to an education will flux depending on what the market will bear… results/benefits… cost… free market competition is good.
I think you get the point I was making, just in different words. Old growth forests for education, whereas today is an empty desert.
Leave a Reply