A consultant from McKinsey and Co. reviewed the state of higher education in the Huffington Post the other day. Things have to change, he said. Given the high costs and soaring student debt, colleges must “develop new programs offering clear value propositions for this new crop of students.”
Good advice, but is it possible? Clayton Christensen, the “disruptive technology” guru, has famously said that half of all colleges could fail in the next 15 years if they don’t do something.
Attempting to heed Christensen’s advice, Georgetown University has created its own disrupter – a group of people on campus who are trying to overturn old ways of doing things. Called “Designing the Future(s) of the University,” it is a “skunk works” on campus separated from other departments. The group is trying to come up with new “disruptive” ideas for education at Georgetown.
I’m skeptical, though. Here’s a list of things they have proposed (I’m quoting directly from the Chronicle of Higher Education story, which is subscription-only):
- Project-based minors that depend on students to develop the curricula without the confines of a class, “to help them become self-directed learners,” as one writing professor puts it.
- An experiment with using educational badges to recognize student skills that don’t fit neatly on a résumé.
- An effort called “studios,” where students overseen by faculty mentors work together for credit to continue projects begun in class the previous semester.
- A four-year combined bachelor’s and master’s degree, an idea that takes aim at the college-cost issue but has been a source of particular unease for many faculty members.
These changes might enhance the experience of some students but are they disruptive?
Project-based minors sound liked a combination of interdisciplinary courses and independent study. Educational badges sound like the certificates (course clusters smaller than minors) that are becoming popular on campus. “Studios” sound like independent study. Combining bachelor’s and master’s degrees is a great idea – but this is the one that faculty members are most worried about!
Indeed, the faculty may be worried about all of it. “Last week the [faculty] senate established a new universitywide committee that will vet all Red House projects before they get too far along,” wrote the Chronicle. “It will also review self-evaluations the Red House plans to conduct.”
Now, how disruptive is that?