According to a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, new regulations are being set in place to affect tighter controls over on-line education. Since 2001, accreditation boards have made determinations based primarily on a given institution's delivery capacity. Since that time there have been a number of revisions as on-line learning has evolved. Currently there are two trends emerging:
1) There is competition in the field of accreditation which seems to be increasing. A number of organizations are emerging to provide accreditation services.
2) The Higher Education Act up for review again in 2013 and numerous suggestions are being thrown around like (for example) cutting the tie between accreditation and federal financial aid, tying accreditation to graduation rates, and bolstering expectations on the faculty facilitating on-line courses.
With accreditation officials confirming that distance learning is no more or less effective as a medium than brick-and-mortar classes, it is safe to say that on-line learning has more than sufficiently combatted the negative perceptions it was met with when it first emerged. Market forces are a key driver in this and, today, over two-thirds of institutions offer distance learning options and over a third of students have taken them up on that offer.
There are certainly some problems with the trends though. First, if the link between financial aid and accreditation is severed, the integrity of Higher Ed in America becomes a free-for-all and (granted - I doubt it would last for long if it got out of hand BUT) the damage could be devastating. Second: While the article mentions the limited resources of accreditors being problematic in the event of greater federal demands via revisions to the HEA - my concern is that increasing the demands for accreditation could raise entry-barriers in the educational marketplace making it more difficult for competing institutions (of which there are many - only the exception of which deserve negative mention) to gain purchase in the market landscape. The influence of for-profits is undeniable. They are forcing non-profit institutions to rethink their strategies of delivery (thereby expanding options for providing access - the two are intrinsically connected) and to re-examine the value they offer to students. For-profits institutions cater to the market base. The needs and interests of students are not simply a positive reflection on the institution - they are the core competence of for-profits. While they do often charge more they are forced - out of survival and sustainability - to continually expand and refine the product they offer. Non-profits have as their primary impetus regulations and federal demands - regulation takes priority over student needs and often sets the lens through which we view student need. This is, of course, my opinion. BUT if true - what are the ramifications?
David
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
F*$% This!
Oberlin alumni released a website about 3 weeks ago promoting “why the fuck I should chose Oberlin?” It has had some many visitors since it went live with nearly 2,500 reasons from students and alumni.
Here are just a few examples:
“Because our bathroom fucking graffiti is intellectual and creative as shit.”
“Because we have the best fucking safer sex education out there, and that means we can have awesome fucking sex.”
“Because when America didn’t think black people and women were people, Oberlin thought they should probably fucking go to college.”
“Because they’re not afraid of words like ‘fuck.’ ”
So you guessed it, all the reasons include the f-word.
Interesting marketing for a college and it seems to be working. It reminds me of the people who use the word sexy in terrible fashion as well.
On the other hand, they are putting the institution out there and everything else to highlight what Oberlin is about and who should attend. It seems that everything at Oberlin in f-ing amazing! From using a co-op baking sheet to f-ing slide down the hill to the f-ing art.
So why would anyone want to be associated with a so f-ing happy college? Or better yet, a college that prides its students, staff, faculty, alumni on using the f-word? Well, probably to not attract stuffy people like myself who frown on the dumbing down of education to levels where people have to use the f-word to get their point across in an order to prove some witty new marketing scheme.
Here are just a few examples:
“Because our bathroom fucking graffiti is intellectual and creative as shit.”
“Because we have the best fucking safer sex education out there, and that means we can have awesome fucking sex.”
“Because when America didn’t think black people and women were people, Oberlin thought they should probably fucking go to college.”
“Because they’re not afraid of words like ‘fuck.’ ”
So you guessed it, all the reasons include the f-word.
Interesting marketing for a college and it seems to be working. It reminds me of the people who use the word sexy in terrible fashion as well.
On the other hand, they are putting the institution out there and everything else to highlight what Oberlin is about and who should attend. It seems that everything at Oberlin in f-ing amazing! From using a co-op baking sheet to f-ing slide down the hill to the f-ing art.
So why would anyone want to be associated with a so f-ing happy college? Or better yet, a college that prides its students, staff, faculty, alumni on using the f-word? Well, probably to not attract stuffy people like myself who frown on the dumbing down of education to levels where people have to use the f-word to get their point across in an order to prove some witty new marketing scheme.
Connecting Education and Technology In a Different Way
I know the hot topic right now is Penn State and this scandal. I've been glued the story but I wrote my take on the issue in response to Meloni's post and wanted to post something on a lighter note for my last blog.
So the one good thing I've learned through following Penn State is that the Huffington Post has a college new section which is where I found this article "What Higher Education Can Learn from Steve Jobs"
Now I'm not an Apple person (gasp?!- please don't stone me :-)) but I am someone who thinks taking actions, lessons, and examples from other disciplines and applying them to higher education can produce benefits we in Student Affairs cannot always think of first thing. So I was excited to find this article where author, Brian Rosenberg, applied what he learned in Jobs' autobiography to education. (Rosenberg is actually the president of Macalester College in Minnesota, which is a private liberal arts college.)
Rosenberg highlights three things from the book to apply to higher education.
1. "Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do."
I had the pleasure of attending the NASPA-IV West regional conference in Denver a few weeks ago where this exact topic was brought up by Jody Donovan at CSU. I think about all the things college's are being asked to do with limited funding and resources and the one thing I've heard other leaders ask, as well as Jody, is what are we in the business of doing?
I think in higher education we take on a lot because we don't know what not to do or we have the moments of "if we don't do it, who will?" And as a culture in student affairs we are horrible at saying no. I for one have to think constantly about how much is on my plate, as an office of two professionals what are we capable of doing and doing well, and if we're doing too much does it do a disservice to our students.
Apple knows what they are good at and market themselves accordingly. They are intentional about everything they make and do from the people they hire to the products they develop. They aren't afraid to say no and that's why their products are as detailed, intricate, and rewarding to a consumer. Are we in higher ed doing the same things?
2. "Some people say, 'Give the customers what they want.' But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."
3. "The creativity that can occur when a feel for both the humanities and the sciences combine in one strong personality was the topic that most interested me in the biographies of Franklin and Einstein, and I believe that it will be a key to creating innovative economies in the twenty-first century."
So the one good thing I've learned through following Penn State is that the Huffington Post has a college new section which is where I found this article "What Higher Education Can Learn from Steve Jobs"
Now I'm not an Apple person (gasp?!- please don't stone me :-)) but I am someone who thinks taking actions, lessons, and examples from other disciplines and applying them to higher education can produce benefits we in Student Affairs cannot always think of first thing. So I was excited to find this article where author, Brian Rosenberg, applied what he learned in Jobs' autobiography to education. (Rosenberg is actually the president of Macalester College in Minnesota, which is a private liberal arts college.)
Rosenberg highlights three things from the book to apply to higher education.
1. "Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do."
I had the pleasure of attending the NASPA-IV West regional conference in Denver a few weeks ago where this exact topic was brought up by Jody Donovan at CSU. I think about all the things college's are being asked to do with limited funding and resources and the one thing I've heard other leaders ask, as well as Jody, is what are we in the business of doing?
I think in higher education we take on a lot because we don't know what not to do or we have the moments of "if we don't do it, who will?" And as a culture in student affairs we are horrible at saying no. I for one have to think constantly about how much is on my plate, as an office of two professionals what are we capable of doing and doing well, and if we're doing too much does it do a disservice to our students.
Apple knows what they are good at and market themselves accordingly. They are intentional about everything they make and do from the people they hire to the products they develop. They aren't afraid to say no and that's why their products are as detailed, intricate, and rewarding to a consumer. Are we in higher ed doing the same things?
2. "Some people say, 'Give the customers what they want.' But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."
In 2000, no one in this world knew they would need an Ipod or Iphone. They didn't think music could make it to more than a discman and mixed tapes. No one thought Siri would be a household name or that "smartphones" would become a mini computer in your pocket. But Apple did. And they knew they could make it intuitive, market friendly and a product everyone HAD to have.
What if we asked the question, "What is it our students need from their education before they actually figure out they need it?" I think we have some old school answers to this like general education, financial aid, etc. The essence of this question is "what is the future of higher education and what do we need to do now to get people to buy in, committ, and celebrate their experience?" I rarely hear that asked in education and even more rarely, do changes actually happen. I've always struggled with the reactive nature of Student Affairs. Yes, sometimes all we can do is put procedures in place and react when needed. But there is A LOT more we can be proactive about. May be if we truly look at what we should stop doing as much as what we need to start doing, we can take a step closer to anticipating what students need.
This is a great affirmation that all branches of a university need each other to be great. How much are we actually working with our partners around an institution?
This article made me think twice about all three of these things in my own work. How can I stop doing things, get ahead of what my students need, and partner with others on campus? Leaves me a lot of complex ideas and thoughts. I am just glad that somebody else in higher education is asking the same things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)