4 ms·

Absolutely agree. And because of this, any fantasies from tech of easily disrupting education look rather naive … almost like they’re still in the mindset of th

by maegul 4y ago

Absolutely agree. And because of this, any fantasies from tech of easily disrupting education look rather naive … almost like they’re still in the mindset of the student trying to prove their intelligence. It seems then that the technical challenge is certification/assessment. Here, AI could play a role. If a machine can interactively and dynamically have a “conversation” with a person, that is randomised/unique and responsive to the student, all to assess how much they understand a topic, that’d probably do it. Combine it with a certain degree of oversight and random checking and provisions for review/appeal from “actual experts”, and you’d still have something that should scale pretty well beyond the university monopoly. An additional factor is the importance of cultural/mainstream perception. There’s a lot of “hacking” or gaming of the university assessment system, especially if you contrast the reality with the lofty and important goals of education and edification. I’d be interested to know how many, having gone through the system, really put that much faith in the quality of the “certificate”. I’ve certainly heard stories of some people/institutions wishing to also look at high school or secondary college results because they’re less likely to be “gamed” (though I have no idea how common at all this is).

analog31 4y ago
Assessment is a minor technical challenge, but finding people to assess might be a bigger challenge. Outside of possibly a small handful of fields (computer programming), we don't know how many people can actually learn an academic subject in any depth on their own. Everything is speculation unless that number can be nailed down. A more likely use of AI would be to expand the candidate pool by changing the nature of the jobs that are being hired for. An example is the automation of engineering calculations by high level software such as CAD. I've gone through the system. I wouldn't hire someone based on their credentials alone. On the other hand, a person who gets through the "weeder" courses in engineering or the physical sciences at the state university, but is outright faking it, would be a black swan event, not worth planning for.
- maegul 4y ago
  > Outside of possibly a small handful of fields (computer programming), we don't know how many people can actually learn an academic subject in any depth on their own. I'm not sure solitary self-learning is the only type of learning consistent with a disrupting higher education. If technology is to drive change here, I'd argue that a plurality of competing education/learning resources or services from which an individual can cater their choices to their own needs is what would be aimed for (or at least likely). > I wouldn't hire someone based on their credentials alone. On the other hand, a person who gets through the "weeder" courses in engineering or the physical sciences at the state university, but is outright faking it, would be a black swan event, not worth planning for. I agree. However, to my point about cultural perception, which I believe plays a large role in the state of higher education, what happens when higher education if universally seen as mostly "weeding"? Are the costs, inconveniences, cultural hegemonies/hangups/snobberies desirable and worth it?
  - analog31 4y ago
    The "weeder" course isn't intended to be symbolic. It tends to be a course that can only be offered after the students have gotten through the basic math cycle, i.e., 3rd year, and is heavily mathematical / theory oriented. I taught it once as an adjunct -- Electrodynamics in the EE department. Teachers are fully aware that a "weeder" course is a problem, and make a sincere effort to get as many students through as possible. But nonetheless it results in a lot of attrition.

by maegul 4y ago

analog31 4y ago

Assessment is a minor technical challenge, but finding people to assess might be a bigger challenge. Outside of possibly a small handful of fields (computer programming), we don't know how many people can actually learn an academic subject in any depth on their own. Everything is speculation unless that number can be nailed down. A more likely use of AI would be to expand the candidate pool by changing the nature of the jobs that are being hired for. An example is the automation of engineering calculations by high level software such as CAD. I've gone through the system. I wouldn't hire someone based on their credentials alone. On the other hand, a person who gets through the "weeder" courses in engineering or the physical sciences at the state university, but is outright faking it, would be a black swan event, not worth planning for.

maegul 4y ago
> Outside of possibly a small handful of fields (computer programming), we don't know how many people can actually learn an academic subject in any depth on their own. I'm not sure solitary self-learning is the only type of learning consistent with a disrupting higher education. If technology is to drive change here, I'd argue that a plurality of competing education/learning resources or services from which an individual can cater their choices to their own needs is what would be aimed for (or at least likely). > I wouldn't hire someone based on their credentials alone. On the other hand, a person who gets through the "weeder" courses in engineering or the physical sciences at the state university, but is outright faking it, would be a black swan event, not worth planning for. I agree. However, to my point about cultural perception, which I believe plays a large role in the state of higher education, what happens when higher education if universally seen as mostly "weeding"? Are the costs, inconveniences, cultural hegemonies/hangups/snobberies desirable and worth it?
- analog31 4y ago
  The "weeder" course isn't intended to be symbolic. It tends to be a course that can only be offered after the students have gotten through the basic math cycle, i.e., 3rd year, and is heavily mathematical / theory oriented. I taught it once as an adjunct -- Electrodynamics in the EE department. Teachers are fully aware that a "weeder" course is a problem, and make a sincere effort to get as many students through as possible. But nonetheless it results in a lot of attrition.