Most of the commenters focus on the technology of learning. Perhaps that's all that was intended, but there's more: 1) The student audience is staggeringly di

Most of the commenters focus on the technology of learning. Perhaps that's all that was intended, but there's more: 1) The student audience is staggeringly different. Back then, it was well-to-do Protestant white males. Now, it's far more representative of the population statistics. 2) The subject matter has radically altered. 100 years ago, quantum physics was nonexistent, cosmology was in its infancy, biology was "stamp collecting" (quoting a physicist) and computers were nice young ladies the folks in (1) tried to get close to. Whole departments, good or bad, have appeared (and disappeared) over this time. 3) The range and number of "advanced degrees" have greatly increased. Partially due to the huge increase in the number of colleges and universities but also for the creation and/or expansion of whole industries: weapons, pharma, electronics, ... What was the crown jewels of individual countries now shape the economics of the world. 4) Computational capabilities is infinitely higher than 100 years ago. This permits computational modeling, medical and/or biological processes (PCR, gene/chip screening, etc) or even economic or hobby activity that would seem diabolic to our predecessors. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Some things aren't worth changing - some of the pedagogic methods are thousands of years old. As others have said, why change what isn't broken, and why should we adopt "technology" that merely distracts from the problems at hand? Small classes, driven by discussion rather than lecture, are still amazingly effective in transmitting knowledge and stimulating thought. Edit: Oh, and regarding physics... There's been a staggering lot of it in the last 100 years, both good and bad. Sorta altered the world, it has.