autocratic for the people.

Parents seem more concerned by the array of technology-oriented undergraduate education options these days than their kids. It's presumably still true that high school seniors feel instantly overwhelmed when their prospects for higher education are discussed, so adding in the complexity of choosing the appropriate sub-discipline in order to properly predict the fast-moving tech job market doesn't really induce any more panic in them than the word "college" does, all by itself. It's parents, then, who worry about choosing the appropriate specialization, picking the best geographical location for said specialization, and guessing about whether or not there'll be demand in four years for a graduate from a school that only teaches programming courses using Java.

Clearly, there are problems with treating technology-oriented higher education like more traditional disciplines, and it's obvious to posit that a higher-tech solution could improve things. That's nothing new -- a lot of people have been saying that educational institutions could take better advantage of a lot of new technologies in order to deliver a better education to more people, but usually the specifics have been either purposely avoided or killed in funding subcommittee. I was talking about this last week with a friend who has two kids, one about to stare down the barrel of the SATs, and we decided to come up with a few specifics. Here, then, are some ideas regarding how to better tech-oriented undergraduate education, and maybe even improve efficiency in the process.

The single most important thing that needs to change about tech education is the belief that specialization is a good and desirable educational goal. US News & World Report and The Princeton Review have it dead wrong; it's useless to list top schools in 40 niche categories, since most kids have no idea what they want to do with their lives. (And even if they do, they're likely restricted geographically by either funds or transportation costs, so the list's utility is at best handicapped.) Instead, it makes a whole lot more sense to rank schools by breadth of educational opportunity; that is, how many different areas of study are available, and how well do closely correlated fields rank in the aggregate? As an example, CMU is known for its computer science, fine arts, and drama programs. MIT is known for its technical programs. Chances are, a kid who wants to have some sort of computer-related job is going to rank MIT first, but if that ends up not working out, he'd probably be better off at CMU where there are other options available. Since the major problem these days for schools is actually graduating students, it makes sense to encourage selection of institutions based largely upon opportunities offered. It simply increases the likelihood of success.

I suspect that ranking schools based on breadth of opportunity will give a big boost to state schools, which is great because state schools have perhaps the best chances of making great strides through new technology. Playing off of their traditional strengths as both more affordable and more local choices, state schools could take advantage of their public sponsorship in order to make themselves even more available to the general population by making clever use of both the internet and another, oft-overlooked, undervalued public resource: libraries.

If we assume that the major education-related hurdles for the average undergrad are money, time, proximity, and availability of supplemental resources, then the local library becomes a blindingly obvious place to establish a virtual satellite campus. Library computers would be an option for people who don't have access to a computer otherwise, and access to course material -- both printed and electronic -- would be immediate, reducing barriers to getting work done. Also, libraries tend to be proximal to large numbers of people, and by making them the congregation point for students, group discussions and even in-person teaching assistant help sessions would be feasible. Tuition might be even lower with no physical infrastructure to maintain, and besides, increased enrollment numbers may well be able to make up for lowered tuition. And either way, the biggest win here would be that the campus becomes part of the students' existing community; one could argue that local babysitting services and other small businesses might get a boost from a program like this, because traditional college-town infrastructure would appear all over the state instead of concentrating in a few areas.

The final piece of the education overhaul follows logically from the virtual-campus idea: separate areas of the state could have different teaching philosophies and educational styles, even as they teach the school-mandated online course curriculum. This would effectively address the final issue technology-oriented undergrads face: how to predict the ever-shifting job market. Students would be able to tailor their education to the local job market, where trends are slower to change than they are nationally. Also, if there's a large local employer looking for specific skills, being able to work on one's education while interning for that employer becomes possible where it was not before. Extending that thought, I think a library-based virtual campus approach like this could possibly increase local employment rates, making it a win for local government as well.

This solution is of course highly speculative, and based on a number of assumptions. But it does address a good number of problems facing potential undergrad (and continuing education) students today, and it does so without introducing any new public services or utilities. It simply makes more effective use of existing ones, and does so while encouraging state-school attendance and bringing small businesses, white-collar employers, and communities together.

posted by avixe @ 10:43 AM