What is the basis for the belief that this system is different?
There's a long history in the US of businesses working with local education systems in order to train people. This is more formalized through technical school and vocational education. Given that this proposal is very similar to systems we've had, why should we expect better success?
McDonald's is one of the companies mentioned as possibly supporting this scheme. Note that McDonald's already has its own Hamburger University, which is a corporate university.
The text says "Unlike traditional accreditation boards, this board is formed of representatives from relevant corporations and professional societies." How is this "unlike traditional accreditation boards"?
How much time is needed from the 'institutional advisers and industry experts' to provide the 'deep personalization'? Is it an extra 500 hours per year per student? Or 2 minutes? Since they 'interview students at predetermined milestones', it will certainly be at least several hours per student just for that. It's hard to be 'deeper' than the current system with under 10 hours/year, so I'll assume 25 hours/year. Who pays for this time? Assuming $50/hour that's an extra $1,250 per student, or about a 10% increase in tuition.
Do these industry experts get any training in how to evaluate students? What mechanisms are in place should the industry experts, say, discriminate against students who are veterans - is the school responsible, or the company? What if the expert simply doesn't like a given student; can the student request an alternate?
What methods are in place should the local company with the industry experts decide to relocate or otherwise stop assisting with the program?
First off, thank you for taking the time to write a critique on what could easily have been a spam post from a throwaway account.
I'll do my best to address each of your points.
---
"What is the basis for the belief that this system is different?"
This system is different from traditional education in that there are no standardized tests, no tenured teachers, and the student determines the pace of their education. This system also differs from traditional education in the amount of information made available to the student concerning career options and to the student's potential employers concerning the student's character qualities and experience upon the student's graduation.
As you mentioned, this system has slightly less differences when compared to vocational education.
---
'Given that this proposal is very similar to systems we've had, why should we expect better success?'
I actually had someone refer to this model as 'vocational education for white collar jobs' and that's a fairly close summarization. I have no intention of competing with tech schools. Instead, I'm going to apply the vocational education model to traditional education, whose attempt to provide students/society with a "well rounded" and "cultured" students has led to a second system - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/660900/the-three-systems-...
- while standardized testing has bled students' creativity and intrinsic motivation.
---
'Note that McDonald's already has its own Hamburger University, which is a corporate university.'
Noted. I also noted the severely limited scope of Hamburger University's curriculum to "development paths for crew, restaurant managers, mid-managers and Executives". The was no mention of software engineers, marketing staff, logistics coordinators, etc. Seems like McDonalds is still a potential market.
---
'The text says "Unlike traditional [...] societies."'
No, the text says "Unlike traditional [...] societies, streamlining the process of determining learning objectives for each occupational role."
I'm aware that traditional accreditation boards are influenced by both industry and professional societies. Most of the research I've done on accreditation boards was on ABET and here is their list of partners - http://www.abet.org/network-of-experts/expand-your-network/
I want to see Industry create the minimum viable educational objectives, in order to increase both transparency and standardization. I say "minimum viable educational objectives" because these requirements would the most commonly requirements shared by the majority of the industry for specific entry level roles.
I do see how appending the actual variance between ABI and traditional accreditation boards to the end of the sentence weakens the statement and I will be editing that.
---
"How much time is needed from the 'institutional advisers and industry experts' to provide the 'deep personalization'?"
This is an issue that is going to require some experimentation. I suspect there will be a high level of variability in the amount of time individual students will require and the fee structure is going to have reflect that.
My current model is that my institution will cover advising fees to a certain cap, after which the student will be charged at an hourly rate.
---
"Do these industry experts get any training in how to evaluate students?"
Yes, all advisors receive guidance on advising best practices.
---
"What mechanisms are in place should the industry experts, say, discriminate against students who are veterans - is the school responsible, or the company?
What if the expert simply doesn't like a given student; can the student request an alternate?"
My current model is that industry experts would be treated as independent contractors. Students would choose the industry experts that they wished to be advised by and be able to rate those experts at certain milestones. As opposed to advising experts, interviewing experts would be randomly selected from within the same field of study and can not be rated by interviewed students. There would be an appeal process for interviews however, that would trigger a second interview, but incur additional charges if the second interview is failed.
If an expert can be statistically proven to be discriminating against a subset of students, that expert will likely be dropped from the program.
---
"What methods are in place should the local company with the industry experts decide to relocate or otherwise stop assisting with the program?"
If all goes well, this education model will be based on an online platform so the physical distance between expert and student, within a certain number of time zones anyway, won't be a severe factor. Face-to-Face advisement can certainly be more efficient in some cases, but whether those are offered and at what price will depend on what we learn as we go along.
You appear to regard "traditional education" as a monolith. My comment was to point out that there have been many diverse systems. While your proposal may be different from the most stereotypical modern college system, it is not significantly different from existing or historical alternative systems.
You write 'This system is different from traditional education in that there are no standardized tests, no tenured teachers, and the student determines the pace of their education'
First off, 'standardized tests' doesn't apply to higher education. At least, all of the tests I took in college, at a US state school, were created by the teacher. While there has been an increasing emphasis in standardized tests in the primary and secondary level, the only college level and higher tests I know of are for admittance, like the SAT, ACT, LSAT, an GRE. From what I understand, the first two are decreasingly important, and in any case many schools, especially public junior colleges and community colleges, have open enrollment policies.
Second off, the University of Phoenix is an example of a 4 year college with no tenured teachers. Searching now, the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering and Lindenwood University are two other colleges without tenure positions. (Olin College seems to share other aspects with your proposal.)
As for 'student determines the pace of their education'; what do you mean by that? Many school allows part-time students. But taking 1 class per year, which would mean taking 40 years to graduate, is usually not possible. It certainly isn't manageable by your scheme, since you expect higher continuity between the student and industry experts.
On the other hand, traditional correspondence schools, and schools like the Open University, are structured around the needs of part-time students. Quoting from the Open University's home page: "You don’t need any formal qualifications to study with us, just commitment and a desire to find out what you are capable of." and elsewhere "If (like most OU students) you study part time at a rate of 60 credits a year, you'll take six years to complete an honours degree". (Eyeballing now, they have a time limit of 12 years in their program.)
Actually, the Open University seems rather similar to what you propose. At http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/strategy/partnerships - "We also offer a choice of 22 foundation degrees, designed in collaboration with employers to provide the intermediate technical and professional skills they demand."
While not 'traditional', my question wasn't "how is your proposal different from (to pick an example of a traditional school) the University of Chicago" but "how is your proposal significantly different than existing examples of higher education?"
"My current model is that industry experts would be treated as independent contractors."
Ah, so treat them like adjunct professors? Yeah, few in industry will want to deal with that hassle. Adjuncts put up with it because they hope for a full-time academic job. What does the independent industry expert get out of it?
- "You appear to regard "traditional education" as a monolith. My comment was to point out that there have been many diverse systems." -
To clarify, when I say "traditional education", I'm referring to the liberal arts college model. I do this because currently 66% of high school graduates enroll in college within a year and 88% of high school graduates enroll in college by the age of 26.
- "While your proposal may be different from the most stereotypical modern college system, it is not significantly different from existing or historical alternative systems." -
"existing or historical alternative systems" is a really big scope. If the scope is limited to just "existing alternative systems", then I respectfully disagree. Udacity probably has the most similar model (if there is something more similar, then I have yet to find it) and the resemblances are striking. However, my model differs in the amount of intrinsic motivation, problem solving, & project management skills required of the student. The model is designed to test and record the students' character qualities and display those qualities to potential employers. It's for what Marie Bjerede describes as "Hobbyists" - https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-09-02-hobbyists-scholars-a... - and I hope that, should the proof of concept succeed, the model will encourage all students to become hobbyists, so there's a strong social impact angle here, rather than just trying to serve the existing market. I want to promote personal growth.
- "First off, 'standardized tests' doesn't apply to higher education. At least, all of the tests I took in college, at a US state school, were created by the teacher." -
You're using a really limited definition of "standardized testing". While all my exams were also created by the instructor, the questions were selected from a "common bank of questions" and "scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students", which fits the definition provided here: http://edglossary.org/standardized-test/
I'm aware that the primary association of the term "standardized test" is with large scale tests, such as the SAT, ACT, TAKS, etc, but many college exams still fit under the definition.
- "Second off, the University of Phoenix is an example of a 4 year college with no tenured teachers. Searching now, the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering and Lindenwood University are two other colleges without tenure positions." -
Tenure is not the issue. The issue is having instructors who have near total control over teaching methods, assignments, and grading rubrics for their courses, yet whose skill at actually facilitating student learning can't be quantified. This issue is why the No Child Left Behind act and the Common Core are so controversial. My model solves this issue by giving the student control of determining the instruction methods & assignments that suit them best and disposing of grading scales completely.
- "As for 'student determines the pace of their education'; what do you mean by that?" -
I mean that there will be no classes, no semester, no academic year, no common schedule of any kind. The student designs & implements projects & meets with advisor as the student chooses to. Accordingly, the fee system will reflect this by charging individual fees for individual meetings or a hourly rate instead of a single fee (say tuition) that covers services for 4-5 months at a time.
- "What does the independent industry expert get out of it?" -
I suspect that most of the industry experts won't be freelancers, but rather will be employed by one of the corporations with which we have a strategic partnership. I don't know all the reasons that freelancers are freelancers, but I suspect that two main categories are "Autonomy & Flexible Schedule" and "Extremely High Demand". While freelancers in the High Demand category will probably pass us up due to their ability to make much higher income, I believe our model has a lot to offer freelancers in the "Autonomy & Flexible Schedule" category. In addition, there is the social impact and giving back to the community aspect. Will it be enough? I can only hope so.
As for your comparison to adjunct professors, did you know a quarter of part time college faculty receive public assistance? We won't even be able to treat our independent contractors anywhere near as bad. Colleges depend on the fact that their entire industry is institutionalized to be able to pull that kind of garbage.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/04/13/adjunct_pay_a...
Finally, I would like to point out that any advising will be more along the lines of "Here are some links where you can find information on industry best practices" and "You might want to consider taking this approach instead" as opposed to Death by Powerpoint, taking attendance, and grading essays for 8 hours.
> "when I say "traditional education", I'm referring to the liberal arts college model"
Yes. My response concerns the 'this is intended to be different' on the first slide, which grates because it's a blanket statement. Had it added 'different from a liberal arts education' or 'different from what most think of college' then I would not react as strongly.
> 66% of high school graduates enroll in college within a year
> A.S. programs are different in that they require students to immediately specialize in a limited number of high-demand fields. They train in areas such as nursing, law-enforcement administration, media design and fire-science technology.
Certainly some of them are using a 2 year program as a stepping stone for a 4 year program. But college also includes religious colleges, culinary college, .. and looking around, it also includes the Aerosim Flight Academy in Florida. Which is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, which is for schools that are 'predominantly organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical careers, and institutions that offer programs via distance education'. That is, it's definitely not a liberal arts college.
So while 66% is correct, my question for you is 1) how many of those are going to something other than a 'traditional' liberal arts college, and 2) why focus on the differences to a liberal arts college, which is the most dissimilar to your proposal, instead of the more similar technical and vocational colleges?
Regarding 'standardized tests', that definition you linked to goes on to say 'the term is primarily associated with large-scale tests administered to sizeable populations of students, such as a multiple-choice test given to all the eighth-grade public-school students in a particular state, for example'. Your interpretation seems to be that just about any test is a standardized test, so long as there is a consistent grading scheme and more than one person being tested. Why not just call that a 'test', and leave 'standardized test' for its primary association?
On the other hand, if you call teacher developed one-off tests for a given classroom a 'standardized test' then I see no inherent problem with that. Just bear in mind that you want to replace standardized tests with standardized external advisers. Unless the external people are free to do whatever they want, they are being held to some standard, yes? Which is why they will get some (standardized) training in how to mentor students, yes?
Why do you think a standardized external adviser is more cost effective at providing the education that the student desires than standardized custom tests developed by the teachers for each course?
> "Tenure is not the issue"
You raised the issue, so I don't think you should so easily dismiss it. Yes, I agree that your proposal is different than a liberal arts college. But why does that matter? A lot of other school are also different than a liberal arts school. Why should your proposal stand out among the crowd?
It's like saying that your new two wheeled human powered vehicle is different than a car, when most people want to know how it's different than a bicycle.
> "I mean that there will be no classes, no semester, no academic year, no common schedule of any kind."
Regarding adjunct professors, I made that comparison deliberately. When you say "We won't even be able to treat our independent contractors anywhere near as bad", you assume a system where your scheme is in place, and required. But why will schools switch to what appears to be a significantly more expensive system? How do you reassure people that the extra cost is worthwhile? If the colleges treat the external advisers like crap, and so get few advisers, except the incompetent and those who feel they can make a 'social impact and [give] back to the community' despite getting low-balled - then what's the downside?
You say the benefit of having no standards is that the half-trained 20 year old student can figure out what suits them best, rather than a fully trained 40 year old with years of teaching and industry experience. Yet what little I've seen on the topic suggests that students are usually a worse judge of their needs. For example, and quoting from http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/21/what-exactly-do-student... :
> These studies confirm the common belief that good teachers can get bad evaluations: Teaching effectiveness, as measured by subsequent performance and career success, is negatively associated with student teaching evaluations. ..
> Students are arguably in the best position to judge certain aspects of teaching that contribute to effectiveness, such as clarity, pace, legibility, audibility. We can use surveys to get a picture of these things; of course, the statistical issues raised in part I of this blog still matter (esp. response rates, inappropriate use of averages, false numerical precision, and scatter).
> Trouble ensues when we ask students to rate teaching effectiveness per se.
If students already do a poor job in estimating teacher effectiveness (based on subsequent performance and career success), then why should we believe they do any better at judging curriculum details? Quoting again from that link:
> Worthington (2002, p.13) also makes the troubling claim, “the questions in student evaluations of teaching concerning curriculum design, subject aims and objectives, and overall teaching performance appear most influenced by variables that are unrelated to effective teaching.
Of course there will be exceptions, both in terms of specific people and certain colleges. New College of Florida is one where more of these decisions are placed in the hands of the students, but it is not completely hands-off.
As for "I suspect that most of the industry experts won't be freelancers, but rather will be employed by one of the corporations with which we have a strategic partnership"; do note that you have changed your position. You previously 'the current model is that industry experts would be treated as independent contractors.' These are not really compatible. If they are employees of a company, will the goal of the industry expert be to provide a student the best education for the student, or the best education for the corporation?
When there is a conflict between the two goals, how often might the industry expert suffer negative employment consequences for supporting the student instead of the expert's employer? In the current system, the teacher's goals are much more aligned to the students goals, so this is less of an issue.
Regarding "Here are some links where you can find information on industry best practices" - that's certainly not "deep personalization", which is what you lead with. Nor are your examples more than what a teacher or undergraduate adviser can already do.
"taking attendance"
Many if not most college courses don't take attendance except for those where class participation is important. For example, I skipped out on a lot of my intro. physics courses. The homework was due at the end of class. We would skip class and work on the homework in the hallway outside.
There are of course classes where attendance is important eg, discussion-oriented classes, lab classes, and music ensemble classes; I don't think it's unreasonable to require a nursing student be present on the day the class practices drawing blood.
These sorts of classes, which you'll note includes career oriented classes like nursing, cannot easily be handled by your proposed system.
Before I continue, I'd like to explain why this model uses direct instruction as a last resort. I'm a firm believer that vocational education should reflect the reality of the workforce. The reality of the workforce is that information & experience always comes with a price tag (except for open source, which doesn't count because that's more like a student group study session) and, if you solving a really complex problem, then while people can provide advice, there's probably no one who can tell you how to solve the problem step by step in the first place.
> I agree that your proposal is different than a liberal arts college. But why does that matter? A lot of other school are also different than a liberal arts school.
I feel like I addressed this when I answered your question on "why focus on the differences to a liberal arts college, which is the most dissimilar to your proposal, instead of the more similar technical and vocational colleges?"
I'm aware that there are other institutions using competency based learning systems. I consider that fact to actually be in my favor because it suggests that my timing isn't radically early, like WebVan or Google Glass. I'm also aware that none of these institutions are taking over the education industry by storm and I have to admit ignorance as to the specific barriers for these institutions, although I suspect a lack of proper marketing and designing for scale.
> "But why will schools switch to what appears to be a significantly more expensive system? How do you reassure people that the extra cost is worthwhile?"
Would you care to explain why you think it would be so much more expensive? I went to a small state university in Texas and spent approx. $40k for my B.S. in Comp Sci. I can't imagine my model being anywhere near as expensive. My model cuts out every learning objective that is not related to specific occupational roles. So there's no requirement for any physical science mastery (I had to take two courses in a natural science) unless you're going to be a scientist. There's no requirement for history or political science unless you're going to be a historian or a politician. Trigonometry, calculus, and more advanced mathematics can all be condensed into a "Mathematical Reasoning" requirement due to the fact that mathematics is basically a framework with use rules that remain the same no matter how complicated or abstract the math gets.
When you add the fact that we will encourage people to learn from freely available resources and try to limit instruction to teaching people how to learn (Side Note: The first brand name I gave this model was MetaU because the curriculum is built on a foundation of metalearning) as much as possible, I like to think that the end result is a ton of savings for the consumers themselves.
> "But why will schools switch to what appears to be a significantly more expensive system? If the colleges treat the external advisers like crap, and [...] what's the downside?"
First off, I have no intention of selling this model to schools. I've seen just how slowly some of these schools embrace change. Glaciers are known to move faster. I intend to create an institution, disrupt the industry, and cause as many of these schools to have to close their doors as I can.
As for your question regarding a hypothetical situation in which advisors are treated like crap, if such a situation ever occurred in my institution, a lot of people would get fired real fast.
> "If students already do a poor job in estimating teacher effectiveness (based on subsequent performance and career success), then why should we believe they do any better at judging curriculum details? New College of Florida is one where more of these decisions are placed in the hands of the students, but it is not completely hands-off."
...and we wouldn't be either. The learning objectives for the role the student seeks will provided by industry and the student must meet those requirements to receive official recognition for having completed the program.
But, ultimately, students are responsible for their own education. Nothing can change that fact. Therefore, this model reflects that reality by placing the responsibility for nearly all decisions on the student while simultaneously bringing all available resources to the student's attention.
> "As for "I suspect that most of the industry experts won't be freelancers, but rather will be employed by one of the corporations with which we have a strategic partnership"; do note that you have changed your position. You previously said 'the current model is that industry experts would be treated as independent contractors.' These are not really compatible."
First off, the latter statement is in the context of the student-advisor relationship and the former statement is in the context of institution-advisor relationship. In addition, the "will be employed by one of the corporations with which we have a strategic partnership" clause does not mean that the industry expert will be employed by our strategic partner solely to advise our students. While student advising and working on corporate projects simultaneously may be too much to demand of an expert, I wouldn't want to see industry experts focused on advising for longer than a few months before returning their focus to industry. I've seen too many cases of "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" in my lifetime already and will seek to do everything I can to make sure we don't encourage that idiom's propogation.
> "If they are employees of a company, will the goal of the industry expert be to provide a student the best education for the student, or the best education for the corporation?"
As I said earlier, advisors would be held to the standard of student satisfaction.
> "When there is a conflict between the two goals, how often might the industry expert suffer negative employment consequences for supporting the student instead of the expert's employer? In the current system, the teacher's goals are much more aligned to the students goals, so this is less of an issue."
First off, while there may not be the possibility of similar conflicts of interest under the current system, I strongly disagree that teachers' goals are anywhere close to aligned with the goals of students today.
Secondly, I'm having a really hard time envisioning a conflict of interest between student and advisor's employer. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, but when you take the fact that our strategic partners (basically any corporation serving on the accreditation board and providing us with industry experts to serve as advisors) get the first chance to offer our graduates positions, the fact that most of our students will be joining our program to be hired by one of our strategic partners, and the fact that any detected manipulation on the part of the advisor's employer will either result in the student choosing a different advisor, the advisor being dropped from the program, or even the advisor's employer being dropped from the program... I'd like to think that none of our strategic partners would see a benefit in meddling.
That said, I'm not sure why or how corporations might attempt to meddle or how we would detect it, but we would certainly seek to incentivize all parties involved to align their goals as much as possible.
> "Regarding "Here are some links where you can find information on industry best practices" - that's certainly not "deep personalization", which is what you lead with."
The "deep personalization" isn't due to advisement. It's due to the fact that students implement project of their own design at their own pace.
> "There are of course classes where attendance is important eg, discussion-oriented classes, lab classes, and music ensemble classes; I don't think it's unreasonable to require a nursing student be present on the day the class practices drawing blood. These sorts of classes, which you'll note includes career oriented classes like nursing, cannot easily be handled by your proposed system."
First off, like you noted, my system is competency based, so there are no classes.
...and while you're right that activities that depend on bodily interaction (Pretty much any healthcare or human performance procedural mastery requirement) or machine interaction (lab work, machinists, etc) would require additional partnerships with hospitals, labs, machine shops, bands, etc, that's an obstacle that can be overcome in time. Also, the activities you mentioned involving group activities can be done online synchronously and asynchronously with a slight variety in difficulty. In new programs where the number of students is not enough to sustain group activities, either internships or assistants will be provided at my institution's expense.
Also, as I said, I have no intention of competing with vocational schools that are providing the instruction and credentials required by industry. My parents always told me that nothing good comes from fighting with family.
> "My response concerns the 'this is intended to be different' on the first slide, which grates because it's a blanket statement. Had it added 'different from a liberal arts education' or 'different from what most think of college' then I would not react as strongly."
Noted. I can and will adjust the wording, not only in this presentation, but also in my future descriptions of this model.
> "But college also includes religious colleges, culinary college, ..."
However, this website suggests that the Department of Labor does distinguish between colleges and technical/career education: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/
> "1) "How many of those are going to something other than a 'traditional' liberal arts college?"
I'm no longer as sure of the answer to that as I was at the beginning of our conversation. I'm going to have to do further research and probably also ask the Department of Labor for clarification of how to interpret the information they have available.
> "why focus on the differences to a liberal arts college, which is the most dissimilar to your proposal, instead of the more similar technical and vocational colleges?"
There's multiple reasons for this:
1.) Because my experience has been that liberal art colleges have far more credibility in the eyes of the general public than tech schools, art institutes, etc.
2.) Up until today, I was confident that liberal art colleges had a majority share of the postsecondary education market.
3.) My model was specifically created to disrupt liberal arts colleges.
> "Why not just call that a 'test', and leave 'standardized test' for its primary association?"
Very well. I will adjust my future wording of this as well.
> "Unless the external people are free to do whatever they want, they are being held to some standard, yes? Which is why they will get some (standardized) training in how to mentor students, yes?
Why do you think a standardized external adviser is more cost effective at providing the education that the student desires than standardized custom tests developed by the teachers for each course?"
Okay, I feel like you just used the term "standard/standardized" with three different meanings.
I would like to reiterate that this model is built on the premise that the information that the student needs in order to obtain mastery is likely already available online in a format that the student can easily digest.
When I say that advisors "advise", it's not a euphemism for instruction or in-depth mentorship. Students are encouraged to learn all they can on their own, to "bootstrap" their education, if you will. Any instruction by someone connected to my institution is only to provided as a last resort.
Are advisors held to a standard? Yes, the standard of student satisfaction. Will that require some management of student expectations? Absolutely.
Are advisors provided standardized training? No. Advising best practices can not be expected to be standard across all industries.
Even the conceptual mastery interviews will not be standardized. They will most likely be structured, but the questions themselves will be unique to the student's project.
--- Starbucks is closing. I'll address your other points as soon as I can.
I do not have the interest in continuing this discussion. I'll only mention a few points.
1) Those who can bootstrap their education have no need for college. A college provides support in various forms, for those who cannot do it all on their own. It also provides external validation, either to the student or to the world at large, that certain thresholds were achieved.
To point out, students in traditional liberal arts schools are also encouraged to learn all they can on their own in addition to what the professor teaches. I already mentioned New College. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida#Academi... :
> Four core principles form the base of New College's academic philosophy: (1) each student is responsible in the last analysis for his or her own education, (2) the best education demands a joint search for learning by exciting teachers and able students, (3) students' progress should be based on demonstrated competence and real mastery rather than on the accumulation of credits and grades, (4) students should have, from the outset, opportunities to explore in-depth, areas of interest to them. To the end of putting this philosophy into practice, New College uses a unique academic program that differs substantially from those of most other educational institutions ...
They certainly reject your view that 'instruction by someone connected to my institution is only to provided as a last resort', and yet they are also not a 'traditional liberal arts school' in the style you dislike.
2) Yes, I used standard/standardized with different meanings to point out that you have done the same shifting in your statements. Consider your statement 'Advising best practices can not be expected to be standard across all industries'. This is of course nonsensical. But you used 'standardized testing' to include one-off tests created by a teacher for a single class room. If that meaning were valid - and you have said that you won't be using it - then teaching best practices for a specific industry niche is also teaching to a standard.
3) Regarding what 'college' vs. 'technical/career education', it doesn't matter. Your said '66% of high school graduates enroll in college within a year', so you need to use the same definition as the source for where you got the 66%. You can't pick an alternative definition that better suits your personal beliefs.
Thank you once again for taking the time to critique my model. While I still have every intention of realizing my model, I will be taking each of your points into consideration. I wish you luck in your ventures and look forward to participating in future discussions with you on whatever topics we happen to encounter each other.
Thanks again to dalke to the hopefully continuing critique. I'd love to hear your thoughts and concerns as well, dear reader.
That said, I'd like to take a moment to discuss my motivation behind developing this model. Beyond the ordinary entrepreneurial reasons of wanting to make a big splash and getting frustrated by an issue, I believe that the need of the consumer is changing and that the education industry's focus must change with it.
Up until approximately the Industrial Revolution, education was focused almost solely on vocation training or procedural mastery. Education not focused on vocational training was focused on providing "culture". Over time, abstract information grew and gained value in the eye of the general public as applications for it were found. Various societal factors required credible wielders of this abstract knowledge to also have "culture". As a result, the education industry created the monastery, the university, and the liberal arts college - all of which focused on conceptual mastery.
Conceptual mastery education did not and will never replace vocational mastery education. It simply provided another path to success for a select (but still growing) fraction of the population.
However, both conceptual and procedural mastery are becoming obsolete in the face of technological advances. There's no reason to memorize calculus formulas or accounting algorithms where they are already stored in code libraries distributed across the globe and available at the touch of a button. There's no reason to learn how to build air conditioning systems when a robot can do that faster, more efficiently, and more reliably. These days, we're even automating roles involving human interaction and medical diagnosis.
So what kind of occupational roles will last in a world where responsibilities of ever increasing complexity are being automated? What qualities will those roles require?
My answer is that the required qualities will be:
The detection of highly complex and possibly almost abstract problems (Predicting consumer intent, for example),
initiative & drive (Let's face it: dealing with complex issues is exhausting. That's why we create stereotypes & labels. That's why we give directions in landmarks or major roads. That's why America has a two party political system.),
and the ability to conceive of and create solutions, whether those solutions take the form of physical devices, abstract systems, or human organizations.
Just like educational institutions focused on conceptual mastery did not and will not completely replace institutions focused on procedural mastery, my institution will not completely replace current liberal arts colleges. I do think that I will take a significant (and ever growing) fraction of the education market, however.
There's a long history in the US of businesses working with local education systems in order to train people. This is more formalized through technical school and vocational education. Given that this proposal is very similar to systems we've had, why should we expect better success?
McDonald's is one of the companies mentioned as possibly supporting this scheme. Note that McDonald's already has its own Hamburger University, which is a corporate university.
The text says "Unlike traditional accreditation boards, this board is formed of representatives from relevant corporations and professional societies." How is this "unlike traditional accreditation boards"?
Professional societies already influence traditional accreditation. Here's the IEEE page on their role in accreditation - http://www.ieee.org/education_careers/education/accreditatio... . So do corporations, as you can see in on this page for ACBSP - http://www.acbsp.org/?page=corporate_members .
How much time is needed from the 'institutional advisers and industry experts' to provide the 'deep personalization'? Is it an extra 500 hours per year per student? Or 2 minutes? Since they 'interview students at predetermined milestones', it will certainly be at least several hours per student just for that. It's hard to be 'deeper' than the current system with under 10 hours/year, so I'll assume 25 hours/year. Who pays for this time? Assuming $50/hour that's an extra $1,250 per student, or about a 10% increase in tuition.
Do these industry experts get any training in how to evaluate students? What mechanisms are in place should the industry experts, say, discriminate against students who are veterans - is the school responsible, or the company? What if the expert simply doesn't like a given student; can the student request an alternate?
What methods are in place should the local company with the industry experts decide to relocate or otherwise stop assisting with the program?