4 ms·

People here seem to think Christensen is saying higher ed is dying, but I don't think that is the point he is making. Flagship state schools and the Stanfords,

People here seem to think Christensen is saying higher ed is dying, but I don't think that is the point he is making. Flagship state schools and the Stanfords, MITs and Princetons of the world will be just fine, but there are many small, private, liberal arts colleges (often with a religious affiliation) that are in a big trouble financially. Many of these schools are fairly expensive at 30k a year or more and they are having a really hard time attracting students. This article has a lot more details about this trend: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/11/13/spate-recent-college-closures-has-some-seeing-long-predicted-consolidation-taking https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/11/13/spate-recent-... Something like 30% of the colleges in the US have less than 1,000 students and those are the schools that are in trouble, a drop in enrollment for a school that size is a death knell: https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Real-Reason-Small-Colleges/236732 https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Real-Reason-Small-Coll... Many of these schools haven't changed their curriculum in decades, in fact they can't even give a reasonable definition to the term "Liberal Arts" and with costs so high parents and students are expecting a little bit more to justify the investment. https://hechingerreport.org/with-enrollment-sliding-liberal-arts-colleges-struggle-to-make-a-case-for-themselves/ https://hechingerreport.org/with-enrollment-sliding-liberal-... Personally I think the way we handle higher education in the US is totally backwards; get the degree and then try to figure out what to do for the rest of your life? What the heck kind of plan is that? If someone came to you with a business plan written like some of these kid's plans for the future would you invest $200,000 in their business? And yet somehow we loan kids money to pursue this plan and/or parents spend the money to fund it. It is absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has. Imagine if these kids had to submit a 10-20 year plan before they could take a out a student loan?

wahern 8y ago
Imagine if these kids had to submit a 10-20 year plan before they could take a out a student loan? Imagine if you had to pick a major when you were 6 years old. That would be insane. (Insane is a poor choice of words because this is effectively the case in many countries for cultural reasons, but in the context of U.S. culture would be considered imprudent and impractical.) In a society like the United States where employees are expendable and life-time employment will involve numerous different companies and positions, there's something to be said for a generalist education. If the U.S. had an industrial policy like Germany than a German-style educational model would make much more sense. But the U.S. has consistently rejected those policies, despite decades of economists of all stripes advising politicians to do so. (The same is true to a lesser extent in the rest of the Anglosphere, which not coincidentally also have higher education models more similar to the U.S. than continental Europe and much of the rest of the world.) Therefore, employers will value the more generalist approach. In the U.S. a 4-year biology degree matters not because of what it says about your knowledge in biology, but largely because it shows you persevered through 2+ years of writing, history, etc. In other words, you had the discipline to take up other subjects you didn't explicitly choose; not only pass their exams but to go to the classes (i.e. show-up!) and do the coursework (obey orders). And, ideally, it would show that you can integrate and apply those disciplines and methodologies to various tasks. (This is more aspirational.)

wahern 8y ago

Imagine if these kids had to submit a 10-20 year plan before they could take a out a student loan? Imagine if you had to pick a major when you were 6 years old. That would be insane. (Insane is a poor choice of words because this is effectively the case in many countries for cultural reasons, but in the context of U.S. culture would be considered imprudent and impractical.) In a society like the United States where employees are expendable and life-time employment will involve numerous different companies and positions, there's something to be said for a generalist education. If the U.S. had an industrial policy like Germany than a German-style educational model would make much more sense. But the U.S. has consistently rejected those policies, despite decades of economists of all stripes advising politicians to do so. (The same is true to a lesser extent in the rest of the Anglosphere, which not coincidentally also have higher education models more similar to the U.S. than continental Europe and much of the rest of the world.) Therefore, employers will value the more generalist approach. In the U.S. a 4-year biology degree matters not because of what it says about your knowledge in biology, but largely because it shows you persevered through 2+ years of writing, history, etc. In other words, you had the discipline to take up other subjects you didn't explicitly choose; not only pass their exams but to go to the classes (i.e. show-up!) and do the coursework (obey orders). And, ideally, it would show that you can integrate and apply those disciplines and methodologies to various tasks. (This is more aspirational.)