next »

[larryc]

The online education is often done badly is not evidence that it cannot be done well.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

1) grading standards and quality has been the excuse for a lot of nonsense in higher education.  If quality was the real issue you can come up with an assessment that demonstrates that a student has a certain level of knowledge.  Most of the time, quality isn't the real issue, it's jobs and money.  I don't mind people looking after themselves and protecting their own jobs and income.  I do mind when they invoke high ideals to do it.  (And to be fair, state universities are much less bad about this than the Ivies.)

2) if there wasn't pressure from the state, the flagship universities would not even try to coordinate with CC's.  There are plenty of bureaucratic ways of getting nothing done, and flagship universities try all of them to keep from accepting CC credits, but ultimately the state government starts screaming at the universities to get something done.

I thought I responded to this already, but my post being absent I evidently never pressed "post".

I have been involved in the articulation process for many years, and in my experience both these statements above are quite false.  They reflect some popular, simplistic fictions as they are often reported in newspapers, or through rumor, or reflect the spin of people with a political agenda.  If you have some actual documentation or personal experience to back the cynical view you hold of the motivations of R1 faculty, then please share it.

In fact, flagships have been coordinating closely with CCs for many years - long before politicians got involved - and do not consider them as academic competitors, though do of course compete somewhat in some systems for funding.  - DvF

[twofish]

I have been involved in the articulation process for many years, and in my experience both these statements above are quite false.  They reflect some popular, simplistic fictions as they are often reported in newspapers, or through rumor, or reflect the spin of people with a political agenda.  If you have some actual documentation or personal experience to back the cynical view you hold of the motivations of R1 faculty, then please share it.

Personal experience.   Most of it involves looking at the academic politics at MIT up close and personal.   I was in the student committee that did course evaluations that meant that I had to be an active participant of the politics of MIT.  It was a wonderful learning experience, and the fact that these sorts of opportunities are available is why MIT is a great school, not withstanding the fact that some professors can't teach.

I was less directly involved in the academics of UTexas Austin, but I saw a lot of things as a bystander.  Most of it isn't particularly rumor or secret.  You just read the minutes of committee and faculty meetings.  The big thing that I spent a while following in the early/mid-1990's was the state trying to put together a funding plan for how online courses were to be handled for community colleges.  The funny thing was that it was much easier for a community college to enroll someone from the Ukarine than it was to enroll someone from another CC district.

The problem is not that there are these bad evil people out to stop good education.  The problem is that people are not going to go out of their way in order to cut their own throats.  It's not so much some professor is consciously going to say "we aren't going to do this because it will lose us money" but rather some professor saying "I don't think this is a good idea for solid academic reasons" and no one else challenging him because everyone knows the idea will result in a financial loss. 

Academic motivations are sufficiently murky that anyone can come up with an academic justification for just about anything.  The result of which is what actually happens is determined by funding and external forces.

Articulation agreements and cross-credit agreements are really hard to put together and take a lot of time and effort.  Doing *anything* new in a bureaucracy is going to take a lot of time and effort.  Without some outside force saying you *will* spend that time and effort, it gets tossed in the five hundred things that no one has time to do. 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with being self-interested.  We all have to eat, and arguments that are self-justification ones aren't necessarily wrong.  My main annoyance is that having people actively deny that they were self-interested when it is obvious to everyone, just make it slower and harder to get anything useful done.

In fact, flagships have been coordinating closely with CCs for many years - long before politicians got involved - and do not consider them as academic competitors, though do of course compete somewhat in some systems for funding.

Politicians have been involved with community colleges and junior colleges (and state universities) from the very beginning.  The state of affairs in which community colleges are not considered academic competitors to the flagship universities is something of a political truce, and part of the reason that junior colleges become community colleges.[see 1]

The problem is that in avoiding competition between flagships and CC's, it pushes community colleges in a direction in which they end up doing exclusively vocational-technical courses that I personally think leaves students very unprepared for the 21st century workforce.  The question that we have to figure out is how we can put someone in a community college and have them in the running for some super-high skill job (like brain surgery), because any middle skill job is going to end up overseas in a few years.

Also politics isn't a dirty word.  Outside political and economic pressure often forces people and institutions to do what needs to be done. 

Reference:

The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in the United States 1900-1985 by Brint and Karabel

[twofish]

University of Phoenix = McDonalds

Good analogy!

It actually comes pretty close.  UoP has an educational model that can turn someone without any experience in online education into a passable teacher in a pretty short period of time, and it does that with standardization in the same way that McDonald's uses with its workers.  The thing about UoP is that it is tremendously scalable.  Once you have the infrastructure to teach 100000, the incremental cost of adding another set of students isn't huge.

One thing that made it nice to teach there was that I very quickly found out what a lousy online instructor I was, and very quickly found out how to improve.  I didn't see this level of quality monitoring and control at UTexas Austin.

UP charges you for an education that may even hurt your credibility.
McDonalds offers a substitute for food that will eventually kill you if you eat too much, or at least you'll be buying more peptobismal!

You can get a very good and healthy meal from McDonalds.  Just load up on the salads.  One good thing about UoP is the quality of the students.  They are motivated and passionate and much more interesting to teach than your bored 18 year old that just wants a science credit.

For the specific lower division courses that were being taught, the instructional quality at UoP I think is actually much higher than an equivalent course at UTexas Austin and more consistent than a course at MIT, and UoP teaches far more students than either of these two.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I have been involved in the articulation process for many years, and in my experience both these statements above are quite false.  They reflect some popular, simplistic fictions as they are often reported in newspapers, or through rumor, or reflect the spin of people with a political agenda.  If you have some actual documentation or personal experience to back the cynical view you hold of the motivations of R1 faculty, then please share it.

Personal experience.   Most of it involves looking at the academic politics at MIT up close and personal.   I was in the student committee that did course evaluations that meant that I had to be an active participant of the politics of MIT.

In other words, you are basically an academic outsider, basing broad assertions on very little actual knowledge.  Slug's Student's eye view just doesn't cut it, sorry.  However, I now understand some of your optimism elsewhere in the thread, as well as the distorted view of the system that is in place.

If you are really so set on radically altering the higher educational system, you might want to get some actual experience as an educator (and I don't mean TA here!), preferably with hands-on responsibilityfor broad budgeting and curriculum decisions beyond just spectating. - DvF

[twofish]

In other words, you are basically an academic outsider, basing broad assertions on very little actual knowledge.

I wouldn't be complaining as much if I were an insider. :-) :-)

However, I now understand some of your optimism elsewhere in the thread, as well as the distorted view of the system that is in place.

Social systems are very complex beasts, and I've found that in order to really understand them you need a variety of views.  My view of academia is distorted, but so is yours and everyone else's.  In order to figure out what is going on, you really need to get a collection of perspectives.  For example, one reason I don't think highly of the articulation process is that the end result is that people end up in bureaucratic hell trying to get credits transferred.

One big problem with academia is this notion that outsiders have no legitimate standing to speak or complain.  This is a bad thing because often you end up with "emperor has no clothes" moments.  It also causes the system to be ossified.  People within the system are very wedded to it, and doing have either the interest or the desire to change it.

If you are really so set on radically altering the higher educational system, you might want to get some actual experience as an educator (and I don't mean TA here!), preferably with hands-on responsibilityfor broad budgeting and curriculum decisions beyond just spectating.

The real educators are the people who goes right in front of the students and who write the textbooks and lesson plans.  Everyone else in the system are just highly paid secretaries, and one mustn't forget that the president of the university and department heads should serve the TA's rather than the other way around.

As far as getting experience.  I take what I can get.  First of all, I'm just  not going to get into any major position of authority in academia through the standard route, because I just can't and won't put up with a lot of the nonsense than goes on.  I'm just too loud and impatient, which means that in order to get into a position of authority, I'm going to have to find another route.  One reason I like the world of business is that I find that companies *like* loud and impatient people that rock the boat and won't put up with too much nonsense.  It helps make money.

My opinion of the academic system is that it is in some ways so utterly dysfunctional and inbred, that to get a working system, you have to have ideas from the outside, so I've spent a lot of my time in industry, learning how money and business work or don't work.  It also helps that a lot of the drivers of the academic systems are economic, which means that if I really do want to get into a position where what I can implement things, I'm more likely to get to that point by making lots of money and then going through the donors and alumni networks door than through the junior faculty route.  Alternatively I can do the "Eisenhower-thing" which is to make a big name for myself in business and finance, and then end up as a university president.

There is a higher chance of success, it's more fun, and I end up with more of my ideals intact.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

One big problem with academia is this notion that outsiders have no legitimate standing to speak or complain.

Of course outsiders have standing to complain.  If a student hits unreasonable roadblocks transferring credits, he has standing to point this out.  However, if he does not know the history or reason for the troublesome rules, he shouldn't assert made-up reasons as if they were a fact, or assume that reasons do not exist.

If you are really so set on radically altering the higher educational system, you might want to get some actual experience as an educator (and I don't mean TA here!), preferably with hands-on responsibilityfor broad budgeting and curriculum decisions beyond just spectating.

The real educators are the people who goes right in front of the students and who write the textbooks and lesson plans.  Everyone else in the system are just highly paid secretaries, and one mustn't forget that the president of the university and department heads should serve the TA's rather than the other way around.

I agree on the first sentence, disagree on the first part of the second sentence, and completely disagree with the last part of the second sentence: a teaching assistantship is a marriage of convenience between an apprentriceship and exploitation labor, and in neither case is it the institution's job to serve the TA, but rather vice versa.

I'm just  not going to get into any major position of authority in academia through the standard route, because I just can't and won't put up with a lot of the nonsense than goes on.

Oh please.  University faculties are chock full of loud and impatient people.  Some of the slowness you ascribe to beaurocracy is really due to sharply opinionated people pushing against one another.

Alternatively I can do the "Eisenhower-thing" which is to make a big name for myself in business and finance, and then end up as a university president.

Ike didn't hold big business in quite the same regard you do.

The ascendancy of American universities through the second half of the 20th century was exactly because universty management was mainly  in the hands of the educators.  The increasing interference involvement of, or management by, ignorant people coming from the business world is one of the main causes of the problems we've had over the last 20 years. - DvF

[twofish]

However, if he does not know the history or reason for the troublesome rules, he shouldn't assert made-up reasons as if they were a fact, or assume that reasons do not exist.

I'm not sure what you are assuming that the reasons that I've come up for why things are the way they are at MIT or the University of Texas at Austin are wrong.  A lot of your reasoning seems to be from extrapolating experiences from another state, and it may be that the politics are very different.

And it some sense the history doesn't matter.  What matters is fixing it.

a teaching assistantship is a marriage of convenience between an apprentriceship and exploitation labor, and in neither case is it the institution's job to serve the TA, but rather vice versa.

We may have here an irreconcilable philosophical disagreement here on the nature of education and the role of the academic in society.  My belief is that the TA's job is to serve the student, and the job of the institution is to serve the TA.  This belief ultimately comes from Confucian ideals of education and scholarship, and the notion that institutions exist to serve people rather than the other way around.  One deep responsibility of the intellectual is to serve society, and that in some ways puts the intellectual in a subordinate social position.

What's really volatile about my beliefs is that they merge Chinese ideas of the role of the intellectual vis-a-vis state and society, the belief in the importance of tradition with American beliefs on equality and social structure.

I'm curious if you can point to the philosophical roots of your beliefs.  Why should TA's serve institutions?

Oh please.  University faculties are chock full of loud and impatient people.  Some of the slowness you ascribe to beaurocracy is really due to sharply opinionated people pushing against one another.

University faculty are chock full of loud and impatient people *with tenure*.  As lots of people have pointed out in other threads, you don't get to have the privilege of being loud and impatient until you are very high up in the system, and I'm going to get weeded out before I get that high.

The ascendancy of American universities through the second half of the 20th century was exactly because universty management was mainly  in the hands of the educators.

I'm sorry I don't agree.  There ascendancy was because of an interaction between intellectuals and the business elites.  Business people need highly skilled employees and intellectuals have very long traditions and deep ideas that can produce these people.

The increasing interference involvement of, or management by, ignorant people coming from the business world is one of the main causes of the problems we've had over the last 20 years.

I'd be interested if you would define "the problems."  My guess is that we probably don't agree on what "the problems" are.

Everyone is knowledgeable about some things and ignorant about others.  The trick in getting anything useful done I've found is to combine people with different skills and perspectives. 

One of the wonderful things about MIT, which makes it such an exciting place, is that the dividing line between business and academics is blurred, and it's not "us versus them."  Every professor there is trying to start their own company in their garage and some of them do make it big (the founder of Bose speakers).  Conversely, the business interests realize the long term importance of humanities and literature for their bottom line.  The main push for increasing the role of humanities and liberal arts at MIT in the 1980's came from business interests that realize the need for culturally literate people to run the companies.

Pulling it back to the themes that have been in this forum.  I think I was very, very well served by my education, because I ended up with the mental tools and capital to be a "free man" which is the point of the liberal arts education.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I'm not sure what you are assuming that the reasons that I've come up for why things are the way they are at MIT or the University of Texas at Austin are wrong.  A lot of your reasoning seems to be from extrapolating experiences from another state, and it may be that the politics are very different.

Strictly speaking, five states (not counting experiences as a student - which shouldn't count - or postdoc or time on faculty at non-US universities).  However, that is not the point - I am not making broad statements as to how to 'fix' the current system.  I have nowhere near enough experience for that!  All my experience has given me is knowledge that many of these problems are subtle and difficult, and that many of the proposed solutions are not so very new.

On the other hand, I am trying to understand what basis or expertise you have for the broad statements you have been making, some of which are veiled or overt criticisms of my profession, and I don't see any.  OK, so we have established that all your actual university experience is as a student, at two institutions.  How else have you been involved in science education, other than in setting up wikis and email lists and offering opinions?  For example, your own professional organization has workshops and round tables on astronomy education at its annual meetings, have you participated in these?  Have you done any peer-reviewed research in science education?

You dismiss the efforts of people who live and breathe education, because we are somewhat vested in the system, and "have tenure" (the first time I have seen this used as a pejorative).  Your idea, BTW, that being tenured puts you "very high up in the system" also reflects your misunderstanding of the system: tenure typically takes only 4-8 years, does not automatically ossify you, and most of the faculty who are loud and opinionated after getting tenure were also loud and opinionated beforehand.

I'm sorry, but the more you post the harder it is for me to take anything you say very seriously.  I think the future of online education is a very interesting subject, and the status of online degrees something that we might have to reconsider some day, but at this point I'm more inclined to pay attention to actual professional educators - online or otherwise - than academic camp followers peddling untried nostrums, especially those trying to pass them off alternately as received wisdom or as Confucian. - DvF

[twofish]

All my experience has given me is knowledge that many of these problems are subtle and difficult, and that many of the proposed solutions are not so very new.

And I agree with that, which is why we have to put our heads together to figure out things.  I don't have any objection to people saying "well we tried something like that a few years back, and it didn't work for reasons X, Y, Z."  At that point we can go back and say "well let's try something different" or "maybe the world has changed for reasons X and Y."

On the other hand, I am trying to understand what basis or expertise you have for the broad statements you have been making, some of which are veiled or overt criticisms of my profession, and I don't see any.

What basis or expertise do I need to make criticisms?  Also, it's also *my* profession since I'm also an academic and science educator, and personally I enjoy constructive criticism.  If I think that the criticism and proposed solution doesn't take into account factors X, Y, and Z, then I say so.

The problem with restricting the right to criticize to insiders is that insiders are subject to a lot of political, economic, and social constraints.

OK, so we have established that all your actual university experience is as a student, at two institutions.  How else have you been involved in science education, other than in setting up wikis and email lists and offering opinions?

I've taught courses in astronomy at UT Austin and University of Phoenix, and also given internal presentations at my place of employment which is a finance research lab.  At MIT, I was a member of the course evaluation guide which put me in a position to work with the deans and the department heads to work on improving undergraduate education.  I also started my own non-profit to promote distance education.

For example, your own professional organization has workshops and round tables on astronomy education at its annual meetings, have you participated in these?

The person who supervised the course I administrated at UT Austin happen to be head of the AAS committee on science education.  The thing about astronomy labs is that you have to do them at night, so the TA in charge of the course basically has total control over the curriculum.  As far as education theory, I'm very highly influenced by the ideas of Lev Vygotsky and his notions of social learning.  I think also that you'll find that I think much more highly of education departments than 95% of the physics Ph.D.'s out there.

One bit problem with science education is that it's actually very low status among professional scientists which has a huge number of bad consequences, one of which is that most scientists don't realize how hard it is, and do it badly.

You dismiss the efforts of people who live and breathe education, because we are somewhat vested in the system, and "have tenure" (the first time I have seen this used as a pejorative).

There are lots of dedicated, wonderful people in the system, and I've had the pleasure of working with many of them.  The problem is that all it takes to stop anything from happening is one Luddite, and then nothing happens.  Also, the saddest thing about social systems is how smart people end up doing dumb things. 

And I personally, I think that the tenure system as currently structured is enormously destructive to education since it creates social hierarchies that are very destructive to academic inquiry.

I'm sorry, but the more you post the harder it is for me to take anything you say very seriously.

I don't really care if you take me seriously or not, because as far as I can tell you aren't in a position to stop me from doing anything that I think should be done.  The thing about these sorts of conversations are reactions of third parties who are lurking on the sidelines.  You might not agree with me, but I've found in these sorts of conversations that I end up in contact with people that to more or less agree with me, and at that point we have a group of people that can actually change things.

I'm more inclined to pay attention to actual professional educators - online or otherwise - than academic camp followers peddling untried nostrums

Academics is all about trying untried stuff and seeing how it works or doesn't work.  Experts can be wrong, and outsiders can come up with some new and interesting ideas and perspectives.

especially those trying to pass them off alternately as received wisdom or as Confucian.

I'm a traditionalist in the sense that I believe that there are certain "deep ideals" in academia, and the purpose of institutions is to satisfy those ideals.  If you think that my ideals and my approaches aren't well grounded in the academic tradition, I'd love to have that discussion, since I'll probably learn something from it, and talking about how the ideas and ideals of Confucius and Aristotle are or are not relevant to the present problems and issues is why I got involved in this game.

I think we've basically reached the end of this discussion, and the lack of third party interest probably means that no one else is interested, and I think we've said everything we need to say to each other.

[dogvomit]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/12/26/cfb.bag.122607/

If the Florida State University Football cheating scandal doesn't tell you why most of us don't think much of online degrees and courses, nothing will...

This is the main weakness. 
Of course, you can break in the professor's office and steal the test, or grab it off the mimeograph machine..yes, I saw Animal House.

[twofish]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/12/26/cfb.bag.122607/

If the Florida State University Football cheating scandal doesn't tell you why most of us don't think much of online degrees and courses, nothing will...

The trouble with most efforts at online education is that it's basically shovelware.  Take what exists offline, and put it online.  It also doesn't help that online education is often been sold as a way of saving money, when in fact a good online program drastically increases your costs.

You are not going to have good results if you take a multiple choice test in an offline setting and put it online.  The options are to either use multiple choice tests and have mechanisms for security (which costs $$$$) or else use other methods of evaluation (which also costs $$$$).

Online education like everything else can be done badly, but the fact that it can be done badly doesn't mean it can't be done well.  The reason I'm excited about it, is that when I taught at the University of Phoenix and I saw their curricular model, I saw enough similarities with the way that things are done at MIT and Harvard, that I think that with a few modifications, you can take the system that UoP uses and start educating the next generation of Nobel prize winning physicists as well as vastly increase the number of scientists and engineers available. 

This fits in with some of the thinking that is happening at MIT about the role of the Institute in the 21st century....

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/373/

All that needs to happen is for a few key people to start talking to each other.  You basically need MIT faculty, MIT open courseware, either one of the large online universities (UoP or Capella) or a credentialing university (Thomas Edison State College, Charter Oak, or Excelsior), a major community college system, and someone from a national lab, a professional society (AAS).  Other groups that might be useful are a major technology vendor (Microsoft or Google) and maybe a large state university system.

This may or may not happen in the next ten years, and right now I'm just too busy making money.  If no one else has done it in the next decade, I'll just retire early and fly around introducing people to each other.  The type of thing that I would do is to go to Capella or UoP, point out that they don't have an intro calculus course and that MIT has already put the curriculum for one online, and that point it would involve talking back and forth to see what it would take to modify 18.01 to fit the curricular model of UoP or Capella.

If anyone else wants to do this, be my guest.

[dogvomit]

I just want to clarify, I do think online degrees can be done well.  I just do not think most of these programs are done well.  Most that I am encountering are done on the cheap to make money and save money under the disguise of "the interest for place-bound students." 

I saw a wonderful graduate degree program out of Sweden or Norway in GIS.  It was online-distance learning and looked effective.  There are other programs.  But when the first thing the school says is, "no one will know whether your degree was obtained online or on campus," you automatically know that there IS a clear prejudice against distance learning degree programs.  The FSU fiasco only reinforces these ideas. 

If a school the stature of FSU gets sniped by cheating at this widespread of a level, then how much more difficult will it be for schools with less money, fewer resources, and a less selective admissions policy!?

[gourmand601]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/12/26/cfb.bag.122607/

If the Florida State University Football cheating scandal doesn't tell you why most of us don't think much of online degrees and courses, nothing will...

This is the main weakness. 
Of course, you can break in the professor's office and steal the test, or grab it off the mimeograph machine..yes, I saw Animal House.

I don't see any support for your argument against online learning.

When I was in college (age 17-21), getting answers on a test was extremely normal and was called cooperative learning.... and this was at a large research university with Ph.D. faculty (not graduate students) teaching the courses. Yes this is cheating and No it should not be allowed. But we need to realize that whether the exam was taken online or in the traditional classroom, the students would still cheat.

The rogue tutor would have most likely had the answers to the exam and the football players would have still cheated in a traditional setting. Memorizing answers is not that difficult.........

What most likely happended....... the football players needed to keep up their GPAs...... and since they didn't attend class because of football practice... this was their only way of keeping their scholarship and minimum enrollment hours/credit. (or so they thought)

I have seen professors pass athletes who only sat in class only one day in the semester. I have seen instances where influential (wealthy) parents have made phone calls and got their kid an A out of a class. To me, this is the same thing..... cheating.

It's not online education.... this is a social/systemic issue.

[dogvomit]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/12/26/cfb.bag.122607/

If the Florida State University Football cheating scandal doesn't tell you why most of us don't think much of online degrees and courses, nothing will...

This is the main weakness. 
Of course, you can break in the professor's office and steal the test, or grab it off the mimeograph machine..yes, I saw Animal House.

I don't see any support for your argument against online learning.

When I was in college (age 17-21), getting answers on a test was extremely normal and was called cooperative learning.... and this was at a large research university with Ph.D. faculty (not graduate students) teaching the courses. Yes this is cheating and No it should not be allowed. But we need to realize that whether the exam was taken online or in the traditional classroom, the students would still cheat.

The rogue tutor would have most likely had the answers to the exam and the football players would have still cheated in a traditional setting. Memorizing answers is not that difficult.........

What most likely happended....... the football players needed to keep up their GPAs...... and since they didn't attend class because of football practice... this was their only way of keeping their scholarship and minimum enrollment hours/credit. (or so they thought)

I have seen professors pass athletes who only sat in class only one day in the semester. I have seen instances where influential (wealthy) parents have made phone calls and got their kid an A out of a class. To me, this is the same thing..... cheating.

It's not online education.... this is a social/systemic issue.

All I can say is that I am very impressed that none of the schools I went to had this problem.  The frats had old tests, but the profs often handed them out anyway.  We had one test time and everyone in the class took the test at the same time.  No one got hold of a test before delivery.  I have never heard of such thing at any institution where I have taught or attended.  If I were you, I'ld be questioning the institution I attended if that behavior ran wild!  (No insult intended).

:)