If every course were to present itself as the Open Yale model does, then it would substantially increase our ability to learn. In fact it could dramatically change the way in which we learn. One module could comprise of the best lectures from around the world. For example, you’re studying the course “Introduction to Philosophy” at a community college. In the first week you’re learning about metaphysics from Harvard, next week the lecture on logic comes from Oxford, then the week after it’s Plato from Tokyo etc.

And at your university your individual lecturer could be doing research instead of spending his time giving a lecture when someone else can do a better job at. Of course the lecturer would still have to understand the course you’re taking. This way he could spend more time helping out individual queries and giving feedback to students instead of giving lectures to people falling asleep.

However, there will be subjects where this isn’t applicable, such as medicine, where hands on work with patients are required. But even then lots of the theory work could still be taught in this new method.

Other ideas and questions I’ve thought about:

1. Do you actually have to go to a university to communicate with your personal tutor?

You could use programs such as Skype and in the future, video conferencing. In fact stuff like this is already happening.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-08-29-overseas-tutors_x.htm

And good quality visual communication isn’t far off either. In the near future I can imagine even more interactive forms of communication will be available

2. Do your personal lecturers all have to come from one University? If there was an excess of Mathematics teachers in India but a shortage in Australia, couldn’t the Indian’s help out the Australian universities? Without the Indians having to leave India?

3. Could degrees be tailor made for your personal needs?

The degree no longer needs to have such limited boundaries. If a potentially unlimited supply of lectures and learning materials are available then why would you have to stick to such a rigid degree structure such as say a course in philosophy? You could easily combine many different lectures to form your own tailor made course. Whether that would make you more employable is another question. And if you wanted a degree in a specific field then you would have to pick your subjects carefully to suit that area. None the less, huge choice will change what courses are possible. I agreed with Mike – it will enable some delightfully weird course combinations.

I think I’m getting way ahead of myself as there are obviously loads of hurdles to be overcome. But I believe things will dramatically change. With current and new technologies there is the potential to transform education so that you’re not just teaching a classroom, you’re teaching the world.

What do you guys think?

Adam

Ultimately, professors, and courses don’t have the greatest impact on students. Don’t get me wrong–professors and amazing schools can take students to completely different levels, but you can have a student in a school that isn’t academically strong, yet receive an amazing education. If we want schools and the education system to produce phenomenal students, students should be taught how to think independently. Sadly, so many people go about their daily business with no regard for any human beings beyond their immediate sphere of influence. People don’t understand the economy, how the government works, that people have varied beliefs, and that the world doesn’t revolve around the United States.

I don’t mean to bash our education system, but I look around and tend to see groupthink perpetuated amongst the masses…It’s saddening, but you hardly ever see any true individuals anymore.

And that isn’t hyperbole. I’ve got TWO amazing jobs directly because of this site.

I’m sure some students use it to supplement their education, but I don’t see what incentive schools have to let someone else’s online class substitute for their regular one.

I can see a near future where the Harvard or Yale brand allows them to create monopolies on distance education. But then education aggregation (great term!) will come along and blow it all to bits.

What do you think the chances are someone will realize that they should probably skip the first part and go straight to long-tail distance education?

I can only imagine the kind of amazing people that will be developed by a system that offers the best engineering education from MIT combined with medical teaching from Johns Hopkins. Or any other more eclectic combinations for that matter. Cool!

By the way Ryan, I’ve been reading your blog for about a week now, and it’s definitely become my favourite. You get read last, even AFTER Godin. Keep it up.

Cheers,

Mike.

I could still get high marks sitting here at my desk taking classes given by some great prof from afar, but I would be missing out on the main things worthwhile in higher education: my peers. If you disagree, then I would argue you are in fact already missing out on the most important part of your education.

…you also can’t forget the fact that the thing that gets most of us through the rigor of coursework is being able to meet new people constantly in the social scenes of universities…facebook alone just wouldn’t quite cut it.

Digitization won’t be just as easy as CDs, because the critical discussion, interpretation, and give-and-take are a large part of the experience, but who are we kidding: Maybe a fifth of professors actually provide that, and then only to a tenth of any given class.

Where this revolution really NEEDS to happen is in primary education. Textbooks, which might as well be written once, used everywhere, are a huge racket that destroys, annually, much of the investment put into America’s education system**. Open up those licenses, allow a academic-run wiki style book … Anything could overturn that market and pour money into better investments. Computers, teachers, air conditioning, etc.

More then that, however, subpar teachers are regularly allowed to continue shoddy work because they have incredibly strong unions and, honestly, a tough, soul-draining gig with little national organization and sharing of data and best practices. With a bit of creativity coupled with technology, experts in their field could “guest lecture” a thousand 5th grade classrooms on chemistry or Shakespeare. You could custom tailor lesson plans to a class’s achievements, socio-economic status, etc., and compare notes nationally to what works and what doesn’t for different environments.

Sure, higher education will change soon as a result of market demands. Already, more than a few schools offer what Derek termed “Ivy a la Carte” . But changes to primary education could be more revolutionary to our society, particularly when preparing everyone for a “flat world” of equal educational access and whatever competitive hurdles await after that.

*http://cornell.elliottback.com/archives/2006/12/13/college-investment-tips-not-worth-it/

**http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/16/unc

2)With that said my school is good for teaching niche technical subjects that really should be college level degrees (here Universities are more theoretical/academic stuff and College is like a Community College that trains you for a career).

I can’t wait for the day when we can have Ivy League a la carte like you mention.