4 ms·

I'm a little put off by some of the wording here. In talking with Ben and JK early on they were really against Stanford and Harvard's "no better than chance" ac

by colbyh 12y ago

I'm a little put off by some of the wording here. In talking with Ben and JK early on they were really against Stanford and Harvard's "no better than chance" acceptance rate and wanted to build a system where anyone smart enough to get in should be able to learn at Minerva. Their idea of online learning was that it should enable higher bandwidth, not less. Then Wired writes this: "...it’s highly exclusive, boasting a 2.8 percent acceptance rate, which is lower than even Harvard or Stanford." It's entirely possible that Wired printed that line without Minerva's blessing and that Minerva's acceptance rate at the moment is simply a consequence of their very small trial class (which is a great idea, not trying to knock their approach). I'd be really bummed to see Minerva changing their vision and trying to be more exclusive than inclusive. I'm just hoping it's a slip of the tongue on an editor's part and not a reflection of where Ben && company want to go with Minerva.

michaelochurch 12y ago
I'd be really bummed to see Minerva changing their vision and trying to be more exclusive than inclusive. The market value of an elite education is the very fact that it's exclusive. That's why the connections are so valuable and the seal-of-approval means so much on the job market. And that payoff is what justifies the quarter-million-dollar (actually, closer to $140-180k) price tag. This is not a comment in favor of, or against, Minerva. However, the truth is that our society doesn't really value critical thinking, education or culture. It values money and power and social access. That's why colleges can charge such high tuitions, it's why "disrupting" the current model is impossible, and it's why the quality of education you get, even if you go to Harvard, is good only if you're already self-motivated when you enter the place. (You can learn a lot at an elite school, but no one forces you to do so. That's equally true of non-elite schools.) I think ed-tech is doomed to underperform because most of these companies don't understand what's actually behind the problem. It's deep and sociological, and (to use someone else's phrase) the problem has its act together.
- colbyh 12y ago
  The original goal was to make the "elite education" a factor of the actual education itself. Minerva should be harder to get in to, by merit, than any other university. At the same time, anyone who CAN pass that barrier should be let in. With Stanford/Harvard/etc there are thousands of people every year that qualify to get in, but are rejected because of the relatively small number of spots available. In that way, it should be possible to have an exclusive AND comparatively large program churning out top-tier students. Pessimism aside, you won't know if something like this will work in the market until you actually try it. Don't really feel like tackling the bigger socio-economic issues you brought up, but I think we more or less disagree on "society's" value structure and what to make of it. I think a big change is in order, and I'm really hoping Minerva can be part of that change.
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    The original goal was to make the "elite education" a factor of the actual education itself. Minerva should be harder to get in to, by merit, than any other university. At the same time, anyone who CAN pass that barrier should be let in. With Stanford/Harvard/etc there are thousands of people every year that qualify to get in, but are rejected because of the relatively small number of spots available. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification, and I hope you succeed with what you're trying to do.

by colbyh 12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago

I'd be really bummed to see Minerva changing their vision and trying to be more exclusive than inclusive. The market value of an elite education is the very fact that it's exclusive. That's why the connections are so valuable and the seal-of-approval means so much on the job market. And that payoff is what justifies the quarter-million-dollar (actually, closer to $140-180k) price tag. This is not a comment in favor of, or against, Minerva. However, the truth is that our society doesn't really value critical thinking, education or culture. It values money and power and social access. That's why colleges can charge such high tuitions, it's why "disrupting" the current model is impossible, and it's why the quality of education you get, even if you go to Harvard, is good only if you're already self-motivated when you enter the place. (You can learn a lot at an elite school, but no one forces you to do so. That's equally true of non-elite schools.) I think ed-tech is doomed to underperform because most of these companies don't understand what's actually behind the problem. It's deep and sociological, and (to use someone else's phrase) the problem has its act together.

colbyh 12y ago
The original goal was to make the "elite education" a factor of the actual education itself. Minerva should be harder to get in to, by merit, than any other university. At the same time, anyone who CAN pass that barrier should be let in. With Stanford/Harvard/etc there are thousands of people every year that qualify to get in, but are rejected because of the relatively small number of spots available. In that way, it should be possible to have an exclusive AND comparatively large program churning out top-tier students. Pessimism aside, you won't know if something like this will work in the market until you actually try it. Don't really feel like tackling the bigger socio-economic issues you brought up, but I think we more or less disagree on "society's" value structure and what to make of it. I think a big change is in order, and I'm really hoping Minerva can be part of that change.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  The original goal was to make the "elite education" a factor of the actual education itself. Minerva should be harder to get in to, by merit, than any other university. At the same time, anyone who CAN pass that barrier should be let in. With Stanford/Harvard/etc there are thousands of people every year that qualify to get in, but are rejected because of the relatively small number of spots available. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification, and I hope you succeed with what you're trying to do.