I wrote about Minerva, which is a new college that strips out a lot of the fluff of higher education and tries to focus on core habits of mind and foundational concepts.
To me, it seems plausible that students who choose to apply to Minerva are unusually focused on learning, as opposed to dating opportunities or sports or other features that attract students to colleges. Thus, if these particularly learning-motivated students had not gone to Minerva, they might during their freshman year have made just as much progress, or more, elsewhere.
Readers will recognize the Null Hypothesis lurking the background of my thoughts. But read the entire essay before commenting.
+1 (the whole essay).
Re: “I like to say that the future belongs to auto-didacts.” Question: How many people who are coming of age would be inspired as you were by your experience with Bernard Safran? (This is the select effect you discussed in your essay.) Bryan Caplan — in (i)The Case against Education (/i) — argues that most people are philistines.
Firms now require students at selective colleges to have credible internship experience, in addition to the degree. College’s ‘signal’ (the degree) to the labor market has become noisier as hand-holding and consumerism have increased in the college experience.
Given public subsidies to higher education, here is an idea for a general radical reform: Every 16-30 year-old is eligible for 3 years of vouchers, which may be used for ‘tuition’ any reasonably accredited school, job training program, craft apprenticeship, internship, etc. Firms, non-profit organizations, skilled tradespersons, etc., would have an incentive to develop attractive programs for human-capital formation (or credible signaling). Universities would face effective ‘external’ competition.
(You can fiddle with the numbers.)
“I hope that it is replaced by an approach that is more decentralized and emergent.”
Many universities have all star professors who teach highly regarded specialty classes of their own design. The chances of getting into such classes is negligible for the majority of students. They have to take the classes that wind up being available and professor quality is largely hit or miss. Hence the great popularity of The Great Courses and Oxford’s free online video lectures. The sellers at brick-and-mortar universities have an asymetrical information advantage over the buyers that has created a market opportunity for sellers able to provide up front reliable information about the product they are selling.
Consider home schooling. The great success of many home schoolers is linked to their adoption of pre-packaged, centrally designed curricula.
Decentralized and emergent models will similarly need to overcome this asymetry.
Auto-didacts seem to be resurrecting the great earl Bolognese university model . Wikipedia describes it a little: “students then hired scholars from the city’s pre-existing lay and ecclesiastical schools to teach them subjects such as liberal arts, notarial law, theology, and ars dictaminis (scrivenery). The lectures were given in informal schools called scholae. In time the various universitates scholarium decided to form a larger association, or Studium—thus, the university. The Studium grew to have a strong position of collective bargaining with the city, since by then it derived significant revenue through visiting foreign students, who would depart if they were not well treated. The foreign students in Bologna received greater rights, and collective punishment was ended. There was also collective bargaining with the scholars who served as professors at the university. By the initiation or threat of a student strike, the students could enforce their demands as to the content of courses and the pay professors would receive. University professors were hired, fired, and had their pay determined by an elected council of two representatives from every student “nation” which governed the institution, with the most important decisions requiring a majority vote from all the students to ratify. The professors could also be fined if they failed to finish classes on time, or complete course material by the end of the semester. A student committee, the “Denouncers of Professors”, kept tabs on them and reported any misbehavior.” Rent-seeking professors of course had to ruin this idyllic set-up by lobbying and winning city funding.
Given the heavily entrenched political power of the education industry in the US, outfits like Minerva offer little hope of fermenting widespread reform. Nevertheless the notion of study abroad may offer students relief from the third-rate higher educational opportunities on offer in the US.
Perhaps the most exciting development in US higher education is the entry of South Korean competition. Already offering huge numbers of courses taught in English, most South Korean universities stand head and shoulders over the typical US university and many consider the South Korean university system to be the best in the world. Most importantly South Korean professors and institutions seem to have a cultural commitment to improvement. More affordable, and higher quality, South Korean universities offer a great alternative to US schools, so much so that some have encouraged the US to adopt the South Korean model: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578639780253571520
Perhaps they’re actually better at it than most but I don’t see a lot that is actually new at Minerva. Active learning has been a concept in education for a while. So has the flipped classroom. The long, detailed syllabi is also a trend. My state requires that an instructor put in 75 hours of prep work before the start of 3-credit-hour online class, and of course the student is supposed to work 75-hours on a three credit-hour just like a seated student.
Accrediting organizations require student learning outcomes (SLO’s) and the assessment of achieving those SLO’s. And of course, most SLO’s are similar to Minerva’s.
So at all universities, central planning and bureaucracy increases. Most universities have more administrators and staff than faculty. Though most faculty will repeat the phrase academic freedom when the bureaucrats try to dictate what one will teach in a classroom.
Your point about the cost savings is interesting. Most labs require small class sizes as well as expensive equipment and supplies (and in some fields, high salaried instructors).
It seems like a lot of good ideas for the best of the best but my guess:
1) I like the core competencies but I find the most successful people can both think independently but also work well/lead a group. So less Ayn Rand heroes that are borderline asses and more of Obama like work together. (I assumed the reason Ayn Rand heroes struggle so much is nobody likes them.)
2) There can only be limited number effective in the marketplace and I am not sure about cost savings here. Sounds very costly to me if you compare more basic universities instead of Harvard. Reads like our car is a better car because it costs less than a Mercedes instead of our car is cheaper than a Camry.
3) I wish more education would focus on average students. In my view, it still seems like more basic college or vocational training for the 30 -90% of the people would have better results to society.
Ayn Rand heroes stop struggling so much once they decide not to care about other people. Me, I believe in reciprocation: I care about others to the extent that they care about me.
The problem with any system of centralized control is that one size does not fit all. Different people learn differently. We each have to find our own path, and to that end it helps to have many to choose from.
If we have many systems to choose from, then let some of these systems be centralized and rigid, and no harm done so long as there others to choose from and the student gets to choose. Some people just “need structure” as the euphemism goes. Others do not.
“Me, I believe in reciprocation: I care about others to the extent that they care about me.”
I am gratified that you are taking such good care of your mother.
Good students who really want to learn are going to flourish almost anywhere. That accounts for a small percentage of students. Maybe 10%. The issue, as alluded to by Collin, is what do we do with everyone else. Those kids just dont learn all that well by themselves.
Steve
I am reminded of E. O. Wilson (the “ant guy”)’s statement in his memoir that he got a fine education at Alabama. When I was in Iowa City it seemed that many undergraduates hardly knew that the library was full of “library stacks” on the fourth and fifth floor–it wasn’t necessary to go up there. Sometimes seniors would say they had just recently discovered them. Granted, open stacks organized by LC number have a learning curve. It’s little harder at non-flagship school, perhaps. IDK.
I think a big challenge is “liquidity” or “free mind share” or something like that. Many undergraduates are so busy jumping through hoops on time and meeting responsibilities that they have trouble stopping long enough to figure out if what they are learning that is of durable value, or useful to them personally, to justify the opportunity cost of being in college. Can they do more? They are often too busy treading water.
There’s an old typology dividing students into four types–I think from a scholar named Trow. Murray Sperber relies on it in his polemical (but valuable) _Beer and Circus_ .
Motivation is a big factor. Also reading proficiency, if you are in a field where reading a great deal is vital.
The NAS list of 100 ideas is worth pondering. Not every student needs the same approach.
https://www.nas.org/articles/one_hundred_great_ideas_for_higher_education
In my own hard-science education (chemistry, BS through Ph.D), lab work and research were absolutely critical. In grad school I had a basic course in metalworking, which was also very useful in my career. Learning the concepts and how to solve the equations is necessary, but there’s no substitute for being able to go into the shop and make something that works. Theory and practice are the same in theory, but not in practice.
Here’s the Minerva cost breakdown, tho not sure about multiple city approach
https://www.minerva.kgi.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees/
summary:
Tuition: $13,450
Student services: $2,000
Residential: $10,500 (depending on location)
Subtotal: $26,000 (when $50 is added)
Grad 4th yr costs: $4,000 (-50; also put above the subtotal)
Food, books, etc: $5,000
Well, it’s a reasonable start. Actually, very reasonable, relative to $60k/yr.
Plus, as Minerva curriculum becomes “more standard”, it should be more amenable to 2 improvements:
1) much wider, on-line only viewing, with virtual classroom. This would be a huge reduction in costs for residential, and possibly student services. Even teachers could be cheaper.
2) Class specific on-line personal tutors, to assist students in learning and documenting their own learning.
2b) These class tutors might become personalized to the student.
Both of these near term enhancements are more possible because of, not in spite of, the central control.
Although there is room for spontaneity within these exercises, there is a lot of central control over what takes place in the classroom.
I actually like the idea of college with more central control, more standardization, and more clear standards, compared with what I see now. Tho I think the standardization should be more on a subject matter certification process / accreditation.
As others mentioned above, more support for the normal, avg college student would be better, too, altho a transferrable/ scalable program for high-achievers that helps the average folk the most might be an ideal.
Jordan Peterson’s talk with Tyler included a small bit about education, which is quite similar to what Minerva says it’s trying to create.
Yet as I think about the “avg” college student, what they want is an education which leads towards a high paying job, but requires the least effort. And learning is hard, even when it is sometimes also fun. The best learning for the “avg” student pushes him to put in more effort than he wants to, but rewards him with more learning/ achievement. Then, later, a higher paying job.
The current formula is clear: get good SAT scores, do well in HS, be a minority (if possible/ plausible), apply to a few high ranking and other medium ranking colleges, go to the best one that accepts you. Start taking a STEM course; when it’s too hard, change to some humanities major. Graduate and get some high paying job; best offer you get.
Minerva as is doesn’t change this. Only if/ when it expands, or its standard curriculum get adopted so much that a mini-Minerva is accepting avg students, but its grads are getting higher than avg paying jobs.
The salaries of grads is the key metric most will really use for determining ranking of schools. I’d expect a near-top school to be advertising their grad salary rates more, but don’t know if any do.
Here’s a story that grads expect first job income of $60k, but get more like $49k.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/college-grads-expect-to-earn-60000-in-their-first-job—-few-do.html
It’s also plausible that the narrow focus on education prevents distractions from other social activities from occurring.
Thank you, Arnold, for taking the time to read about Minerva and share your thoughts. As a Minerva professor, I found your too-centralized critique to be very interesting but somewhat simplistic.
It seems to me that centralization and hierarchies can be useful in contexts where a unitary goal exists and where information is concentrated (e.g. performing surgery, waging war). On the other hand, decentralization and emergent approaches are useful when multiple/unclear goals exist and information is dispersed/local (e.g. politics, consumption choices).
Applying this to education, centralization (e.g. adherence to lessons plans, strong professor guidance) should then be relatively more useful when students are first learning a concept they are unfamiliar with since the goal is clear (learn the concept) and information is concentrated (with the professor). On the other hand, decentralization (e.g. open-ended discussions, student-led activities) is relatively more useful when students are applying concepts they have already learned since the goal becomes less defined (deepening knowledge can occur in many ways) and information is now dispersed (students can bring in their own views once the concept is understood).
Based on my own experience teaching Minerva’s introductory corporate finance course, I find centralization to be more important at the beginning of the semester (e.g. make sure students understand accounting) and during the beginning of each class (e.g. covering pre-class work). On the other hand, decentralization is more important later in the semester (e.g. more business cases that apply course concepts) and toward the end of each class (e.g. more student discussion of concept applications).
To say that Minerva as a whole is too centrally-planned thus strikes me as too broad a brush. It ignores the fact that much of the curriculum requires much centralization (e.g. teaching core thinking skills during the first year, covering highly technical concepts like NPV or options) while much of the curriculum is highly decentralized (e.g. discussion-based classes with no lecturing, many self-designed assignments/courses, international exposure/experiences).