In his book The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere, author Kevin Carey, Director of the Education Policy Institute at the New America Foundation, confidently expresses a rosy view about technology-driven, unbundled education:
“[B]illions of dollars available to create digital learning environments and matching credentials designed to teach relatively small number of courses and subjects to billions of people...The weight of these large numbers will eventually grow so heavy that it will overwhelm even the formidable barriers of regulatory protection, public subsidy, and cultural habit that protects cathedrals of learning...[T]his is neither an avoidable or a distant scenario. The University of Everywhere is on the horizon.”
Meanwhile, in the blog post “Public Matters: A Response to Kevin Carey,” Matt Reed, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs at Holyoke Community College, forcefully counterpoints that such a vision is out of touch with the learning needs of most students and the mission of higher education:
“If we want a society of ever-increasing economic and epistemic polarization, we can replace colleges with apps. But to the extent that we believe that average people matter, we need institutions that make it possible for them to succeed...To the extent that the new tools enable educators to serve the entire public better, bring ‘em on. But if we’re just looking to liberate needles from haystacks, well, I’ve got some brutal unmasking to do.” Matt Reed,
Interesting as it may be to analyze the merits of these competing views of the future of higher education, I find it even more fascinating to compare the cultural milieus from which they emerge.
On the one hand, you have the Kevin Careys of the world. The End of College reads like a love story with the people of Silicon Valley and Cambridge. In Silicon Valley, we are introduced to one technologist after another and their clan of venture capitalists, remaking the world by disrupting it as "thunder lizards" would. Meanwhile, in Cambridge we meet the "smartest people" that are capitalizing on new technologies to reshape traditional institutions to create higher ed x. Running slightly beneath the surface of these two scenes is the shadowy but seductive character only known as AI. An immense confidence in if not a borderline infatuation with these characters makes for a compelling read of a determined future - the University of Everywhere.
On the other hand, you have the Matt Reeds of the world. You will often find them digging away in the trenches, fighting inch by inch for student success within the bounds of the norms and institutions of higher education. The story that these individuals tell is one of evidence based practice, budgets, and on-the-ground realities; arguably, this is far less gripping if more prosaic narrative. An immense confidence in if not a slight distaste for the glacial and contingent pace of institutional changes leads these individuals to seek sustaining innovations while brushing aside the “unsubstantiated rhetoric” of “trendy” ideas.
Once again, I will withhold an analysis of the relative merits of these different cultural lenses, as relevant and interesting as that would be. My scope here - what really captures my imagination - is to reflect on how the dynamism of cultural clashes can potentially be harnessed to create vibrant pathways to better ways of doing things.
The short answer is: I have no idea.
I suspect, however, that we may find our way to some possibilities by crafting a meta-culture of engagement. One norm of this meta-culture states that a diversity of culture should flourish in any epistemic space. Thus, it is imperative to step back from the analytical edge of distinguishing correct from incorrect logic, and instead dwell in the places of disorientation and dispute. Perhaps our time spent here will liberate us from our thought-tribalism and hence enlighten us to see anew. A second norm of this meta-culture states that we must be present to how culture conditions the emergence of perception, most notably our own. If we go further with this understanding, we find ourselves in a space of groundlessness. Here too we must abide - at least for a time - in order to free up creative space for engaging cultural dynamism.
None of this is to downgrade rational analysis and implementation. Rather, a meta-culture of engagement cultivates the foundation for open inquiry and creativity, upon which rational analysis and implementation can then proceed within a space of full possibility. The complexity in which higher education operates requires such an approach in order to diversify and thrive into an ever emerging and transforming future.
No comments:
Post a Comment