• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The education bubble

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Dumbing down" occurs in the secondary schools, not the post-secondary institutions.  The latter will in some cases waste a few credit hours getting graduates of the former up to the required level of preparation.  There is no faking your way through a degree in engineering or sciences, nor for that matter in a traditional rigorous humanities program.  Some of the perceived loss in communication skill is due to the entry of larger numbers of non-native English speakers into Canadian society.  I know, and have known, many people with first-class brains whose spoken and written English does not impress.

Mobile hand-held devices are warping people's ability to function: to what degree I do not know, but there is something wrong when people lack basic situational awareness of what is happening around them.
 
Tango2Bravo said:
So, according to Mr Sherman we should leave higher education to an elite few and just go get jobs. What jobs would those be?

Those jobs would be something that looks like real "work," something that western society has brainwashed itself to think it is too good to do, and is getting economically crushed by other countries where they don't consider everything besides a university degree a consolation prize for those who just aren't "good enough."

Tango2Bravo said:
There is still demand for an educated workforce. Sure, I might be happier if there were less university graduates around so that my degree would "be worth more" but that does not necessarily hold true for an employer or society at large.

There is not much demand for people with degrees in basket weaving anymore. There is demand for a skilled workforce, but most people think they above and beyond that kind of "work" unfortunately.

Brad Sallows said:
"Dumbing down" occurs in the secondary schools, not the post-secondary institutions.  The latter will in some cases waste a few credit hours getting graduates of the former up to the required level of preparation.  There is no faking your way through a degree in engineering or sciences, nor for that matter in a traditional rigorous humanities program.  Some of the perceived loss in communication skill is due to the entry of larger numbers of non-native English speakers into Canadian society.  I know, and have known, many people with first-class brains whose spoken and written English does not impress.

Dumbing down is certainly happening at the most fundamental basic level, elementary school, junior high, and high school, for sure. Largely due to the "no child left behind" dogma that leaves teachers answering to parents as to why their little golden boy is failing, instead of little Johnny getting it from both his teacher and his parents.

But it is happening in post-secondary schools. I graduated my business class with people that didn't know the difference between "profit" and "revenue." You can fake your way through a lot of degree programs these days. I agree 100% with Mr. Campbell, most Bachelors programs today are just the new version of the high school diploma. A few select programs that train you with specific skills and lead to specific career, such as engineering, nursing, accounting, pharmacy, etc... are not just a high school diploma. But most programs are...

I would hate to be a small business owner in today's market trying to hire a competent individual that I could actually delegate some responsibility too. You'd have to toss out all of their resumes and interview every person that applied, sifting through a lot of junk to find a decent candidate.
 
There are certainly good jobs that do not require a university education, although a good chunk of those jobs would need a college diploma. In any case the situation is not the same as it was forty years ago when an individual with a high school diploma (or less) could reasonable expect to walk off their high school and into a well paying local  factory job. In today's international economy we can't really compete with foreign labour in manufacturing. Those jobs are not coming back, so a higher education is needed to remain competitive.

I've actually never met anyone with a basket weaving degree. I don't understand some degree programs, and I try to withhold judgement on them.

Now, I agree that not everyone needs a university degree, and some do not have the aptitude or desire.
 
Tango2Bravo said:
In any case the situation is not the same as it was forty years ago when an individual with a high school diploma (or less) could reasonable expect to walk off their high school and into a well paying local  factory job.

Right, but that's our society's fault! We subsidized this program, and that program, thinking that if everyone could afford a Bachelor's degree, then everyone will be at least "upper middle class," but all we did was distort the labour market. Someone is going to be lower class, middle class, or upper class, no matter what. All we can do is improve our standard of living, and that way our "lower class" is better off than a lot of other country's "upper class."

Tango2Bravo said:
In today's international economy we can't really compete with foreign labour in manufacturing.

Yes we can. The reason we can't compete anymore is because of costs, but not because our wages higher than the rest of the world. The reason the US was a production powerhouse in manufacturing was never because its wages were low, it's because it had the best technology, so it could create the best product (or at least a competitive product) with one employee being paid the same wages as 10 Chinese employees. The West has lost that edge, it is no longer a leader in technology. It either needs to regain that edge, or lower its wages. One of the two will happen whether we like it or not.

Tango2Bravo said:
Those jobs are not coming back, so a higher education is needed to remain competitive

That term, "higher education," drives me insane. Please, go tell a welder with his own truck making $150 an hour how a Bachelor's of Arts is a "higher" form of education. The fact that we refer to a university education as a "higher" education without batting an eyelash makes me sick.

Tango2Bravo said:
I've actually never met anyone with a basket weaving degree. I don't understand some degree programs, and I try to withhold judgement on them.

As long as I have to pay for them with my tax dollars, I will judge them as much as I need to.
 
You seem to flip flopping on wages. If part of your solution is a cut in wages then, well, wages is part of the problem. Technology is awfully portable.

As for the term higher education it's a fairly benign term. In any case I don't go around comparing educations with folks. I am sure that your welder is happy in his job. Who knows what his education is, and I am not sure what your point is. There are certainly folks with well paying jobs without a university education. So? For what it is worth, how do average wages work out between high school grads and those with a BA?

I am not saying that everyone needs a BA. I am, though, refuting the article that we need to return to the dark ages when a select few went to university where they memorized books. Not everyone can be your welder. Many would do well with an university education - even with a degree that you may not respect.

A university education can offer someone a means of moving up. Sure there is risk of debt, but there is risk in everything.
 
Tango2Bravo said:
You seem to flip flopping on wages. If part of your solution is a cut in wages then, well, wages is part of the problem. Technology is awfully portable.

No, I am not flip flopping on wages. Our wages (and, thus, our standard of living) were raised because we had the best technology, so companies could *afford* to pay more for labour and they did because of collective bargaining. Nowadays, our technology is not the best out there. So, we can do one of two things to compete... lower wages, or invest in technology ... or don't compete at all.

Tango2Bravo said:
As for the term higher education it's a fairly benign term. In any case I don't go around comparing educations with folks. I am sure that your welder is happy in his job. Who knows what his education is, and I am not sure what your point is. There are certainly folks with well paying jobs without a university education. So?

I believe its very harmful to refer to a university degree as the "higher" form of education.

My point is, we discourage people from getting skills such as a trade, because those jobs require a bit of physical labour and getting your hands dirty. Those are not "good" jobs. Instead, we tell people (who may want to learn a trade) "you are too smart to do that dirty work, go to university and get a "good" job instead." We've done this to the point that a "good job" is anything that doesn't resemble work.

Tango2Bravo said:
For what it is worth, how do average wages work out between high school grads and those with a BA?

This is a bit old, but I'm guessing still pretty accurate... a male high school graduate makes on average $32,343 a year... while many graduates from BA programs can make much less (Art Studies, $23,904). For the most part, though, they DO make a bit more, but sometimes only by $2000 a year... is that worth entering the workforce 4 years later, $40,000 in debt? I doubt it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/transforming-the-ivory-tower-the-case-for-a-new-postsecondary-education-system/article4588986/

I would bet my last dollar that two decades ago someone with a BA made substantially more than someone with a high school diploma. But not anymore because, as the article points out, a BA has lost its value due to the large supply. You point to the demand side, but I disagree, I don't think there is much more need nowadays for someone with a BA than there was in the past, certainly not enough to make up for how much we've flooded the labour market.

Tango2Bravo said:
I am not saying that everyone needs a BA. I am, though, refuting the article that we need to return to the dark ages when a select few went to university where they memorized books. Not everyone can be your welder. Many would do well with an university education - even with a degree that you may not respect.

But society is telling people that yes, everyone needs at least a Bachelors of X. The article is being figurative... it is pointing out that we, through subsidization, have flooded the market with Bachelors degrees, and made them valueless in the process. It's pretty accurate. We have artificially distorted the supply, to the point that projects are being cancelled because of a lack of skilled labour while too many people who would have been a tradesperson are sitting, unemployed, with a BA. This is a *new* problem, this was never a problem before. There were always plenty of hard-working people who were willing to do real *work* for a living wage.
 
Maybe we can stop the shitflinging if we agree that a welder actually has a "higher education"; his paycheck is probably enough to win that argument.  Anything above and beyond high school is higher IMO, including a lot of things us dumbass army guys do.

I know this has been mentioned before, but probably worth reiterating - the solution maybe with the government keeping in closer contact with universities and colleges to assist with ensuring supply and demand remains balanced.

Subsidize the demand (welders) and don't subsidize the "basket weavers".

 
GnyHwy said:
Maybe we can stop the shitflinging if we agree that a welder actually has a "higher education"; his paycheck is probably enough to win that argument.  Anything above and beyond high school is higher IMO, including a lot of things us dumbass army guys do.

I know this has been mentioned before, but probably worth reiterating - the solution maybe with the government keeping in closer contact with universities and colleges to assist with ensuring supply and demand remains balanced.

Subsidize the demand (welders) and don't subsidize the "basket weavers".

No we can't agree. Being highly trained and skilled isn't the same as being learned.

Matching funding with demand I agree with - some countries do a much better job of this, especially with respect to trades training.
 
DBA said:
No we can't agree. Being highly trained and skilled isn't the same as being learned.

If you want to pick apart specifics, we can do it all day. There is a difference between a "skill" and an "education." However, learning a "skill" is not better or worse than learning "x" theory and "y" theory, etc. This is what I'm getting at. I'm sick of kids being preached, from the day they can walk, that they should all be a doctor or a lawyer, and anything else is coming up short.

That, and skills come with an education component as well. A mechanic must use more than his hands-on skill to diagnose and fix a car. He must apply knowledge in order to use his skill to fix the problem. So, pointing out that a skill is not an education is often oversimplifying, and taking for granted, what a tradesperson does.

DBA said:
Matching funding with demand I agree with - some countries do a much better job of this, especially with respect to trades training.

Most western countries do. "Canada is the only country in the world without a national body responsible for education and is seen as one of the most decentralized and fragmented countries in the world when it comes to helping young people make a smooth entry into the world of work."

I believe I posted "Generation Jobless" a few pages ago, anyway, it discusses this shortfall http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/generation-jobless.html It is not just the government and universities that need to be coordinated, INDUSTRY needs a seat at the table. Such as in Switzerland where "all levels of government, educators and employers, work together to ensure that education and training are linked to employment."

I believe its Germany, but anyway, they subsidize based on how much taxes that industry pays into the government. If you're an engineering firm and engineering firms represent 4% of the tax revenue collected, then 4% of the money spent on education will go towards engineering.

This makes it cheaper to be trained/educated in a field that is in demand, that is actually contributing. Tuition for an engineering student would be much lower than it is for an Art History student. Want to study Art History? No problem, you'll just have to pay more since Art History grad's aren't contributing as much to the economy.
 
DBA said:
No we can't agree. Being highly trained and skilled isn't the same as being learned.

I agree, they are not, but I still believe higher education is anything above high school.  I say the real difference between skilled and learned are their actual usefulness for their moment in that person's life.  Maybe the article is on to something.  Perhaps "higher" education is not meant for the masses, and especially at a young age, it should only be for the gifted. There is a huge difference between a 24 yr old wiz kid that truly applies themselves and an average coasting 24 yr old who might hold the exact same diploma.  Further to that, there are probably a fair bit of older folks who by their practical experience, would likely fall in a lot closer to the wiz kid side of the curve.  Where does that leave your common graduate?

This is what we are seeing right now.  The average person with a degree isn't that good!  From a bell curve perspective and relative to the wiz kids and persons with experience, they fall well to the left.

Anyone know how to fix a combustion engine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9en6AcVkBo
 
DBA said:
No we can't agree. Being highly trained and skilled isn't the same as being learned.

What a slippery slope this is.  I have known many "learned" people who are quite "stupid", who have no "street smarts" nor little common sense.  Would we agree, that no matter what, highly intelligent people can be highly trained and skilled, just as they can be learned; while at the same time we can say the same for 'stupid' people.  You will find both in whatever career path you may research. 
 
George Wallace said:
What a slippery slope this is.  I have known many "learned" people who are quite "stupid", who have no "street smarts" nor little common sense.  Would we agree, that no matter what, highly intelligent people can be highly trained and skilled, just as they can be learned; while at the same time we can say the same for 'stupid' people.  You will find both in whatever career path you may research.

Yes, I certainly agree that wisdom and competence can be missing from either category. I have been reading (it's slow going for me) Intellectuals and Society a book on lack of both from what could be termed the learned class.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I think that what we are seeing in a revaluation of credentials: a BA awarded in 2010 has about the same value as a high school diploma awarded in 1960. We, the CF, recognized that back around 1990 ~ there were other pressures, but a four year degree was considered to be the minimally acceptable standard for officers, whereas a high school diploma was still OK, not good, but OK, just a few years before. Today I think an MA or even a PhD has the value of a BA awarded in, say, 1960.

When I graduated from high school there were six classes in my school: four, with a total of nearly 100 students, were in the "General" or vocational programme and two, with about 30 students, were in the "Academic" or university bound stream. None of the "general" students could, then, go to university, although a handful did attend, later, as mature students. About 2/3 of the "Academic' students did go, directly, to university, I think almost all the rest of us followed along, eventually. Several went to grad school, albeit not a quickly as is common today.


Community colleges, which were rare 50 years ago, have muddied the waters. My understanding, now, is that many employers want a university degree PLUS a skill diploma awarded by a college.

But, I think the biggest change is in the implicit recognition and acceptance that only a very few hundred of the nearly 7,000 accredited colleges and universities in the USA and Canada are "real," first class schools that award degrees that actually mean something, and the implicit recognition and acceptance of the fact (and I think it is a fact) that some degrees, no matter which university grants them, are quite worthless ~ "victim studies" and so on.


In an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Max Blouw, President of Wilfrid Laurier University, suggests that what I understand is, indeed, happening, but he wishes it wasn't:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/universities-should-educate-employers-should-train/article14078938/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Universities should educate – employers should train

MAX BLOUW
Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Sep. 03 2013

The trajectory of most individuals in their education and careers is seldom linear. Few people at 17 or 18 have a crystal-clear idea of what their job will be at 40. And for those lucky ones who do, it is unlikely they will pursue a linear path to that end point and stay in that career until retirement. This is simply not the pattern of the modern workplace.

Yet there seems to be an increasing – and in my view mistaken – expectation that graduates are entitled to land a high-level and highly relevant job right out of school. This is unrealistic in today’s rapidly shifting employment landscape.

Universities are not, and should not be, in the business of producing “plug and play” graduates – workers who can fit immediately into a specific job in which they will spend the rest of their lives. Rather, universities must provide the kind of broad intellectual and personal development that enables graduates to thrive in a world that is constantly changing, a world that demands innovation and adaptability, a world in which they will change jobs frequently between the time they enter the work force and the time they retire.

Last year was dominated by the discussion of the so-called skills gap, a phenomenon recently found not credible by economist Don Drummond. If indeed the statistics don’t bear out a serious mismatch between skills and jobs in Canada, the conversation should move away from turning universities into job training centres and toward the role employers can play in preparing graduates for jobs.

Employers, I believe, have a responsibility to be partners in this process. Specific job training should come primarily from the workplace, building on the broad educational foundation developed through the university experience.

Nearly all of us discover our passions and talents through exposure to ideas and experiences and opportunities, whether educational or employment. The ideal first job is often not readily available at the moment of graduation, but there is plenty of evidence to show that a university education and broad experience frequently lead to a rewarding career.

Universities are primarily in the business of positive human development. They focus on enhancing the abilities of our graduates to communicate clearly and effectively, to analyze, to confront ambiguity with clear methods and confidence, to break down problems into manageable parts, to think critically and to question deeply.

All of this has real value in the workplace. When a university graduate is recruited, the employer has in their new hire an experienced communicator, an adept researcher, a problem solver and a critical thinker – skills that have long been valued. In the past, most employers expected to train employees for job-specific tasks. There would often be orientation, training by human resources or senior managers, a period of job shadowing, a trainee-mentor relationship involving experienced staff, regular feedback and, if necessary, retraining.

But in the modern workplace, more and more employers seem less willing to invest in training new staff. Instead, they call on universities to tailor curriculum ever more precisely to meet specific workplace needs, and routinely advertise for candidates with two or more years of experience in hopes that another employer has prepared a young person for the demands of the workplace.

When employers do this they risk valuing cookie-cutter workers, eventually hurting their own growth. Businesses – and regional and global economies – flourish when fresh, creative ideas are allowed to flow freely and employees at all levels are encouraged to think critically and be innovative. The university experience enhances self-awareness and personal competencies. This breadth of development provides the kind of intellectual flexibility that enables employees to more easily move from this career to the next, and even into careers we can’t yet imagine will exist.

Our economic health depends on the critical thinkers our universities are graduating. The next generation of leaders in our knowledge-based economy will emerge from these institutions and can only truly be great if employers understand and value a university degree as a broad education, not specific skills training.

Oversimplification of the line between education and employment does not serve individuals or society well. Employers, universities and governments need to recognize this and invest appropriately in their respective roles in education and job training.

Max Blouw is chair of the Council of Ontario Universities and president of Wilfrid Laurier University.


Going back to the "dark ages" article, we might want to remember that "skilled occupations," including medicine, the law and engineering were not taught at universities - in England, for example, lawyers were trained, for centuries, beginning in about 1385, in "Inns" which looked, and, I suppose, felt at lot like colleges but were a mix of schools/apprenticeship programmes and communal living quarters for like minded people and employers. It seems to me that out non-degree granting "colleges" represent a return to that tradition and, maybe, it is to those colleges that employers look for skill development.

I spoke, a while back, to an executive in a large technology company; the subject turned to people and he described his "ideal" employee ~ one who would ,eventually, also become an executive ~ as a person with two certifications:

    1. A degree in an academic subject, ideally mathematics (because mathematicians, in his view, are the best critical thinkers), but failing that any "pure" subject; and

    2. A diploma in one of several technical subjects from one of the colleges with which his company, or one of its major competitors, cooperates in programme development.

In other words, he wanted an educated person with additional specialist skills.
 
E.R.,

It is interesting your last post sums up in a nutshell the issue we've been having trying to hire new staff.  I work in the Forestry profession which is a regulated profession like engineers, nurses, geologists...so there is a certain level of educational requirements needed just to be eligible to register (note in Alberta this is open to both university and college grads...laws vary by province).

When looking at applicants...of which there are very very few available currently...not only do we need someone that pass the education requirements but is also willing to take on extra training due to the spectrum of work involved.  Figure 3-5 weeks training per year for the next several years just to bring them upon to a "independent" level of background....mostly related forest fires and the unique issues that side of work brings.

And this is in the public service...so wage competition is an issue.  We're dealing with a very limited labour pool competing directly against private industry in multiple sectors...and frankly losing.

So what options exist?    De-regulation and reducing the quality of applicants needed will work to put bodies in place but raises the risk of long term skills gaps some of which is apparent now already.    Pressure on the professional bodies to expand the scope of eligible applicants is possible but reduces the effectiveness of that credential...if I hire a geologist or geological engineer to review a hill for stability I want a geologist...not an agriculture student with some extra classes.    Change in entry requirements for the educational programs helps but again only works if employeers are hiring graduates and targeted recruitment is done.

Best thought I've heard so far is change the tax system...make it so that education and job training skills done are eligible for the same tax breaks as post secondary education.  Why does a heavy equipment operator who needs multiple safety tickets and job specific courses not get a break but taking a completetly unrelated to work correspondence course give me a break?  There are many many courses being taken weekly accross the country that are directly related to employment, safety, training, and practices but lack the credential of University of X or College of Y on the reciept and yet lead to a higher wage than the degree/diploma of Z.

Anyways..my 2 cents on the idea.
foresterab

Note:  I'm a university graduate working in the field I went to school for.
 
foresterab said:
Best thought I've heard so far is change the tax system...make it so that education and job training skills done are eligible for the same tax breaks as post secondary education.  Why does a heavy equipment operator who needs multiple safety tickets and job specific courses not get a break but taking a completetly unrelated to work correspondence course give me a break?  There are many many courses being taken weekly accross the country that are directly related to employment, safety, training, and practices but lack the credential of University of X or College of Y on the reciept and yet lead to a higher wage than the degree/diploma of Z.

You have probably hit on the perverse incentive that drives the entire education bubble: the subsidization of "education" as a "public good". While I would hardly argue that having hordes of dumb, unskilled people is a good thing, the problem is we essentially pay people to go to school, and an entire vast industry and bureaucracy has grown around the capture of these taxpayer dollars. Notice the incentive is not to train or educate the people being paid to go to school....(and we have hordes of dumb and unskilled people anyway, only holding credentials that allow them to work at Starbucks)

Now if we go your way and provide tax breaks, funding and scholarships for the various training courses needed for employment, then we would simply discover that there would be more vocational training schools, college courses, instructors and administrators moving into the field, and probably corresponding pressure on governments to require even more training and certification before allowing people to work. One can only imagine the state of the job market, especially for entry level workers, in that kind of environment.

The other way to level the playing field, and take a lot of pressure off the taxpayer to boot, would be to simply stop the practice of subsidizing "education" (however defined) for the majority of people. People would have a much better idea of the true costs of their "education" and the relative value of the certifications being offered, while educational institutions would be forced to become far more cost effective in the delivery of their product, and most likely also be forced to upgrade the actual value of their product (BA's would no longer be the equivalent of a 1960 high school diploma, for example, and lots of "programs" with little or no application to the real world will die natural deaths as students go for programs with proven merit).
 
More experience in running massive on line courses tempers expectations, but expect to see new initiatives based on moving up the learning curve:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/19/is-the-mooc-hype-dying/

Is The MOOC Hype Dying?

After a year of setback after setback, the hype around MOOCs is settling down a bit. The latest evidence of this comes courtesy of an interesting profile piece at Fast Company of Udacidy CEO Sebastian Thrun, a man who is in many ways the godfather of the MOOC concept.

When he first founded Udacity, Thrun, a Stanford professor was motivated by a desire to bring a Stanford-quality education to millions of students around the world. Yet after seeing the extremely low completion rates for his company’s courses—often lower than 10 percent—he has shifted his vision towards something considerably more modest:

It will be, Thrun admits, “the biggest shift in the history of the company,” a pivot that involves charging money for classes and abandoning academic disciplines in favor of more vocational-focused learning. In short, Thrun must prove that Udacity is something more than a good story. [...]

Still, I couldn’t help but feel as if Thrun’s revised vision for Udacity was quite a comedown from the educational Wonderland he had talked about when he launched the company. Learning, after all, is about more than some concrete set of vocational skills. It is about thinking critically and asking questions, about finding ways to see the world from different points of view rather than one’s own. These, I point out, are not skills easily acquired by YouTube video.

Thrun tells me he wasn’t arguing that Udacity’s current courses would replace a traditional education–only that it would augment it. “We’re not doing anything as rich and powerful as what a traditional liberal-arts education would offer you,” he says. He adds that the university system will most likely evolve to shorter-form courses that focus more on professional development. “The medium will change,” he says.

Thrun’s change of focus may not be as big a shift as it appears on its face. It’s been apparent from the beginning that the format is better suited for some subjects than others. Math, science and business are easier to teach online than liberal-arts subjects like English and philosophy that rely more heavily on in-class discussions. And while a liberal arts education remains a good option for many people, the vast majority of American college students are choosing majors that are tightly linked to future careers: only 7 percent of all students major in the humanities. On the other hand, subjects like business, science, nursing and computer science are among the most common majors in the country. Even if MOOCs only impact the “vocational” side of the higher-ed world, this still amounts to a pretty sizable chunk of the industry.

Furthermore, while MOOCs as they’re currently offered may not be enough to upend the higher-ed system on their own, there’s lots of promise for “blended” courses in which the online material is supplemented by regular meetings with teachers or tutors who lead discussions and proctor exams. These meetings could be handled remotely using teleconferencing technology, or they could be done in person at local testing centers, in either case adding that human component that remains the weakest link in how these courses are offered today.

Whether this hybrid form comes from initiatives like Udacity’s partnership with Georgia Tech, or whether a lithe startup spawns the capabilities to facilitate a truly next-generation university is an open question. But the opportunity is there. There is plenty of room to disrupt how higher ed is delivered to students today.

and edit to add an approach for commoditizing the lower end of schools. In Canada, schools like this in rural and poorer urban areas seem to be an ideal way to max out limited resources and provide a high quality education to children who would otherwise be disadvantaged:

http://www.wired.com/design/2013/11/schoolinabox/

Pop-Up Schools Could Radically Improve Global Education
BY DAYO OLOPADE11.12.1311:00 AM

A Bridge International Academy in Wang’uru, Kenya.  Courtesy of Bridge International Academies.
Most of the buildings in Machakos, the former capital of Kenya, are made of concrete, with neat fences, informal gardens, indoor plumbing, and electricity, however erratic. By contrast, the local schoolhouse of Bridge International Academies is beyond basic: walls of corrugated tin, a plywood frame. There’s no electrical wiring in sight. A pair of latrines adjoin an open courtyard that doubles as a lunch and recreation area. A few young children loll on the patchy grass, engaged in unhurried conversation.

Yet this school is by no means a failure — in fact, it recently passed a 700-point inspection and is running exactly as planned. This is just one of 212 Bridge Academies that have opened in Kenya during the past four years. Bridge’s “schools in a box” spring up seemingly overnight: In January of 2013, the company launched 51 schools at once, while in September it opened another 78. Bridge now educates roughly 50,000 students in Kenya every day, and its global aspirations may transform the entire project of education for poor youth around the world.

Bridge’s CEO, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur named Jay Kimmelman, compares his company to Starbucks and McDonald’s — organizations that offer a consistent experience no matter where in the world you encounter them. Beyond its 212 branded academies in Kenya, Bridge has set its sights on Nigeria, Uganda, and India. The founders intend to be serving half a million children in 30 countries by 2015, and 10 million by 2025. “We’ve systematized every aspect of how you run a school,” Kimmelman says. “How you manage it. How you interact with parents. How you teach. How you check on school managers, and how you support them.” And this operational approach gets results. Bridge tests kids six times a year, and a third party performs Early Grade Reading and Math Assessments annually. According to those evaluations, Bridge students are beating out their peers at government and other private schools. In reading fluency, the gap is as high as 205 percent.

BRIDGE DELIVERS LOW-COST EDUCATION WITH THE CONSISTENT QUALITY OF STARBUCKS.

The most notable aspect of the Machakos school is that students pay to attend. Since the United Nations made universal enrollment one of its Millennium Development Goals in 2000, governments in Kenya and in much of Africa have eliminated school fees. But outcomes in Africa’s public schools remain deeply disappointing. Dated curricula focus on impractical memorization, and the public school teachers are underpaid and undertrained — spending more energy on managing packed classrooms than on instruction. Supervisors often look the other way when teachers avoid teaching the hard subjects or don’t show up to class. Dropout rates are staggeringly high: In Ghana, for example, which has 5.4 million students in primary school, there are just 1.3 million in junior high and only 730,000 in high school. Abolishing fees has boosted enrollment, but the broad divergence in outcomes worldwide — between developed economies and the “bottom billion” left behind — continues to grow.

Bridge aims to narrow this divide with a radically new take on private school. Tuition is just $5 per pupil per month. There are no student iPads, no science labs. Preschoolers work with clay or blocks; older children learn math with bottle caps and recycled egg crates. Often students write on Dickensian slate boards instead of paper. One of the teachers I met, “Ms. Elizabeth,” completed only high school, and the greatest technological firepower at her disposal was a decidedly analog yardstick.


Courtesy of Bridge International Academies.
Instead of fancy tools, Bridge offers a system built on easy replication: a template for setting up schools cheaply, enrolling children seamlessly, hiring instructors, creating a curriculum, and making sure children learn it. The schools themselves may be lo-fi, but Bridge’s back offices are very high tech.

Before launch, Bridge invested $15 million in systems development, teacher training, and in-class materials, and built an operations template for every school. (Bill Gates is an investor in the company, as are Khosla Ventures and some other traditional venture capital firms.) All student testing and teacher evaluations would filter through Android-based software monitored by engineers and assessors at Bridge headquarters. Since I met Ms. Elizabeth in 2011, Bridge has equipped teachers and school managers with tablets to manage lessons and track performance. Students take analog tests and teachers upload assessments to a central database. “Accountability is the key,” says Kimmelman. “It’s really weird, and really amazing, and it works.”

Bridge’s headquarters are in Nairobi, in a booming industrial area thick with warehouses, mattress factories, and tire distributors. Like its schools, the offices are surprisingly austere — I interview Kimmelman across an unvarnished wood table. “It doesn’t matter if kids are sitting in a building that you call a school,” he says. “They can be sitting under a tree, so long as they’re getting educated — that’s what matters.”

After graduating from Harvard in 1999 with a degree in computer science and electrical engineering, Kimmelman went to San Francisco and spent four years building Edusoft, a web-based student assessment platform that he sold to Houghton Mifflin for $20 million in 2003. Afterward, he and his girlfriend (now wife), Shannon May — another Harvard graduate, who was completing a PhD in anthropology from UC Berkeley — migrated to rural China, where they saw the punishing effects of poor primary education firsthand. May was researching a flashy, government-backed “eco-town” designed to propel a village into the modern global economy. But, she found, “the majority of residents couldn’t even read the postings of the development project to engage in the debates about whether this program was good or bad for them.”

She and Kimmelman found themselves strategizing about how to best help undereducated young people around the world. The winning idea — basic education as a business — sounds counterintuitive, but it was central to planning for the couple and their cofounder, Phil Frei. For parents hovering around $2 in income per day, a potentially transformative education for their kids was just one of many things they couldn’t afford. The demand, however, remains enormous — the global market for low-cost private education is $51 billion annually. To meet the demand, May says, “we drive the price point low enough so parents can become consumers.”

Bridge’s corporate system allows them to nearly eliminate overhead. The work typically done by secretaries, bursars, principals, and other administrators can be handled remotely, leaving only three nonteaching staff at each school. Parents can transfer fees directly from their mobile phones, an innovation that builds on Kenya’s particularly robust mobile money platforms. (Bridge parents on average make $1.23 per day, but 94 percent of them own mobile phones.) If a teacher fails to open or sync a digital lesson within 15 minutes of its scheduled start, someone from headquarters will take note and call the school to see what’s up. If a teacher is absent, Bridge keeps a paid pool of substitutes standing by. “Our commitment to our parents is that their children will be taught,” May says. “So we invest in, essentially, lots of plan Bs.”

At Bridge Academy Machakos, the school manager when I visited was Teresia Jacob, a 23-year-old university graduate with a bright green Bridge T-shirt and a bright smile to match. Jacob had responsibility for the 45 children and four teachers in Machakos, as well as for selling the school to local parents. The heart of her pitch is simple: Bridge schools teach kids. Whereas the average government primary school has a 47-to-one student-teacher ratio, Bridge’s is 30-to-one — and it teaches students for two additional hours each day.


At many Bridge Academies, the greatest technological firepower at the teacher’s disposal is a yardstick.Courtesy of Bridge International Academies.
Bridge isn’t the first nonpublic school in Kenya or in Africa. For years, local communities have created low-cost, mom-and-pop ventures that backstop government failures. Bridge cannibalized this informal tradition but also brought it to scale.

The Bridge obsession with consistency and performance produces its most alien attribute: scripted lessons. Because effective lesson plans are a notoriously difficult aspect of teaching, Bridge eliminates any guesswork — dictating classroom instruction down to the noun and to the minute. In Ms. Elizabeth’s subtraction class, she consults the Bridge manual as kids chant and repeat her phrasing with Pavlovian discipline. Her classroom protocol has been written in advance by Bridge’s dedicated curriculum team. This may sound overly doctrinaire, but there are distinct advantages. For teachers, “the examples don’t come off the top of their head, or when they woke up at five in the morning to try and prepare their class,” May says. The scripted approach also allows for incredibly efficient teacher training: Bridge’s seven-week course is lightning-fast compared with traditional accreditation programs.

SCRIPTED LESSONS MAKE THE CLASSROOM FEEL LIKE A MILITARY DRILL, BUT THEY WORK.

This aspect of the Bridge program may rattle Western assumptions about what a good education looks like. My classroom encounter did feel strangely militarized. But academic research continues to find scripted programs effective: After studying an American scripted-learning program called Success for All, a research group at the University of Michigan gave it high marks, saying that the program “appeared to accelerate students’ reading achievement in the early elementary grades.”

And within Bridge’s pool of 2,500 teachers — typically high school graduates younger than 30 — coming up with a lesson plan and recalling a wide variety of instructional content can impede the larger goal of teaching and role-modeling. “You might know how to multiply fractions, but you might not know the best way to teach a 9-year-old,” May says. “But that’s what we’re asking teachers to do every day around the world.” Bridge schools force an expanded vision of both schools and markets in Africa. And for parents and students in the least served parts of the world, this simple, scalable, and accountable model has proved itself worthy of its modest tuition.
 
The other way to level the playing field, and take a lot of pressure off the taxpayer to boot, would be to simply stop the practice of subsidizing "education" (however defined) for the majority of people. People would have a much better idea of the true costs of their "education" and the relative value of the certifications being offered, while educational institutions would be forced to become far more cost effective in the delivery of their product, and most likely also be forced to upgrade the actual value of their product (BA's would no longer be the equivalent of a 1960 high school diploma, for example, and lots of "programs" with little or no application to the real world will die natural deaths as students go for programs with proven merit).

My only concern here would be that if this were not managed properly, we might end up with middle class families (never mind families of lesser means) being unable to send their kids to school. Maybe an enhanced range of scholarship programs, to help those kids who have shown the intellectual acumen (as opposed to drones whose mommies and daddies have paid the whole shot) to get into post-secondary.

Bridge’s headquarters are in Nairobi, in a booming industrial area thick with warehouses, mattress factories, and tire distributors. Like its schools, the offices are surprisingly austere — I interview Kimmelman across an unvarnished wood table. “It doesn’t matter if kids are sitting in a building that you call a school,” he says. “They can be sitting under a tree, so long as they’re getting educated — that’s what matters.”

I agree strongly with this, based on my experiences as DS at CACSC, both Reg and Res. While the Fort has fully networked digital classrooms and all the bits and bytes , and enough disgusting Powerpoint to choke a US four star, I found that some of my most effective teaching was done outside on the grass, or sitting out on the FFOM patio, using only a flipchart, or cardboard and string. And, I think, students got a lot out of these classes. Not from me, but from the method of teaching. There is, in my opinion, far too much emphasis placed on the supposed "need" for the digitized classroom as opposed to good, solid teaching and learning.

Furthermore, while MOOCs as they’re currently offered may not be enough to upend the higher-ed system on their own, there’s lots of promise for “blended” courses in which the online material is supplemented by regular meetings with teachers or tutors who lead discussions and proctor exams. These meetings could be handled remotely using teleconferencing technology, or they could be done in person at local testing centers, in either case adding that human component that remains the weakest link in how these courses are offered today.

Pretty much how we've delivered the Res AOC for years now: it works.
 
What happens when the Keynesian welfare of years getting advanced degrees meets the computerization of the middle class?
Randall Collins revisits the link between education and future success after writing a definitive work on the subject 30 years ago.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/24/millennials_rise_up_college_is_a_scam_you_have_nothing_to_lose_but_student_debt/

Millennials, rise up! College is a scam — you have nothing to lose but student debt
Students chase degree after degree, adding crushing debt, as jobs vanish. It is time to radically rethink college
Randall Collins

Credential inflation is the rise in educational requirements for jobs as a rising proportion of the population attains more advanced degrees. The value of a given educational certificate or diploma declines as more people have one, thereby motivating them to stay in school longer. In the United States, high-school (i.e., twelve-year secondary school) diplomas were comparatively rare before World War II; now high-school degrees are so commonplace that their job value is worthless. University attendance is now over 60% of the youth cohort, and is on the way to the same fate as the high-school degree. It is a worldwide trend; in South Korea, 80% of high-school graduates now go on to higher education. The main thing that inflated degrees are worth is to plough them back into the educational market, seeking still higher degrees. This in principle is an endless process; it could very well reach the situation of the Chinese mandarin class during the later dynasties, when students continued sitting for exams into their thirties and forties— only now this would affect the vast majority of the population instead of a small elite. Different countries have gone through educational inflation at different rates, but from the second half of the 20th century onward, all of them have followed this path.

Educational degrees are a currency of social respectability, traded for access to jobs; like any currency, it inflates prices (or reduces purchasing power) when autonomously driven increases in monetary supply chase a limited stock of goods, in this case chasing an ever more contested pool of upper-middle-class jobs. Educational inflation builds on itself; from the point of view of the individual degree-seeker, the best response to its declining value is to get even more education. The more persons who hold advanced degrees, the more competition among them for jobs, and the higher the educational requirements that can be demanded by employers. This leads to renewed seeking of more education, more competition, and more credential inflation.

Within this overall inflationary process, the most highly educated segment of the population has received an increasingly greater proportion of the income; at least this has been so in the United States since the 1980s. One should be wary about extrapolating this particular historical period into an eternal pattern for all times and places. Those at the top of the inflationary competition for credentials have benefited from several processes: [a] they were in the relatively safe havens when technological displacement was hitting, initially, the last of the decently paid manual labor force, and then low-paid clerical work. The quality of work performance between different levels of the educational hierarchy has apparently widened.

What has been insufficiently recognized is that the inflationary spiral in schooling has brought increasing alienation and perfunctory performance among students who are not at the top of the competition, those who are forced to stay in school more years but get no closer to elite jobs. Grade inflation and low standards of promotion are symptoms of this process. There is considerable evidence, from ethnographies of teenagers, of youth culture, and especially youth gangs, that the expansion of schooling has brought increasing alienation from official adult standards. The first youth gangs appeared in the early 1950s when working-class youth were first being pressured into staying in school instead of going into the labor force; and their ideology was explicitly anti-school.

This is the source of the oppositional youth culture that has grown so widely, both among the minority who belong to gangs and the majority who share their antinomian stance. Employers today complain that jobs in the lower half of the service sector are hard to fill with reliable, conscientious employees. But this is not so much a failure of mass secondary education to provide good technical skills (one hardly needs high-school math and science to greet customers politely or ship packages to the right address) as a pervasive alienation from doing menial work. The mass inflationary school system tells its students that it is providing a pathway to elite jobs, but spills most of them into an economy where menial work is all that is available unless one has outcompeted 80% of one’s school peers. No wonder they are alienated.

Although credential inflation is the primary mechanism of educational expansion, overt recognition of this process has been repressed from consciousness, in virtually a Freudian manner. In this case, the idealizing and repressing agent, the Superego of the educational world, is the prevailing technocratic ideology. Rising technical requirements of jobs drive out unskilled labor, the argument goes, and today’s high-skilled jobs demand steadily increasing levels of education. Thirty years ago, in The Credential Society, I assembled evidence to show that technological change is not the driving force in rising credential requirements. The content of education is not predominantly set by technological demand; most technological skills—including the most advanced ones—are learned on the job or through informal networks, and the bureaucratic organization of education at best tries to standardize skills innovated elsewhere. In updated research on credential inflation vis-à-vis technological change, I have seen nothing that overturns my conclusions published in 1979. It is true that a small proportion of jobs benefit from scientific and technical education, but that is not what is driving the massive expansion of education. It is implausible that in the future most persons will be scientists or skilled technicians. Indeed, the biggest area of job growth in rich countries has been low-skilled service jobs, where it is cheaper to hire human labor than to automate. In the current US economy, one of the biggest growth sectors is tattoo parlors: a non-credentialed occupation, small-scale business, low-paying and thus far immune from corporate control—and selling emblems of alienation from mainstream culture.

More at the link.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/24/millennials_rise_up_college_is_a_scam_you_have_nothing_to_lose_but_student_debt/
 
Hmm. Agree and disagree.

now high-school degrees are so commonplace that their job value is worthless.

Really? try getting anywhere without one. To day, completion of high school is so commonplace that a person who hasn't done it may be suspect.

The more persons who hold advanced degrees, the more competition among them for jobs, and the higher the educational requirements that can be demanded by employers. This leads to renewed seeking of more education, more competition, and more credential inflation

There might be some truth to this, but I think most employers are still more worried about solid relevant experience in the field in the last few years.

..the last of the decently paid manual labor force...,

"The last" of it? When was the last time the author took a look at what a skilled trades person in, say, the building trades (which are pretty "manual" if you ask me...), can earn? Being married into a large Portuguese family, I'm pretty familiar with the success people can have in these fields.

What has been insufficiently recognized is that the inflationary spiral in schooling has brought increasing alienation and perfunctory performance among students who are not at the top of the competition, those who are forced to stay in school more years but get no closer to elite jobs. Grade inflation and low standards of promotion are symptoms of this process.

While all these things seem to me to be true to one degree or another, I wonder what evidence the author is relying on here. These are extremely broad claims: academic performance (or lack thereof...) can have a number of causes.

There is considerable evidence, from ethnographies of teenagers, of youth culture, and especially youth gangs, that the expansion of schooling has brought increasing alienation from official adult standards. The first youth gangs appeared in the early 1950s when working-class youth were first being pressured into staying in school instead of going into the labor force; and their ideology was explicitly anti-school.

OK: BS flag. I really, really doubt this. IMHO "the first youth gangs" absolutely did NOT appear "in the early 1950's".  I think a fairly basic reading of the history of either the UK or the US would show that youth gangs existed in both countries, in large metropolitan centres, in at least the mid-19th century if not earlier.

This is the source of the oppositional youth culture that has grown so widely, both among the minority who belong to gangs and the majority who share their antinomian stance.

Overstatement. I would argue that the "rise" of youth gangs is culturally based and is due to a whole host of causes. Most of these people, IMHO were never interested in education in the first place, so this entire issue would be meaningless to them.

The content of education is not predominantly set by technological demand; most technological skills—including the most advanced ones—are learned on the job or through informal networks, and the bureaucratic organization of education at best tries to standardize skills innovated elsewhere.

Yes-I could probably buy most of this. To me "education" has become badly confused with "skill training".

In the current US economy, one of the biggest growth sectors is tattoo parlors: a non-credentialed occupation, small-scale business, low-paying and thus far immune from corporate control—and selling emblems of alienation from mainstream culture.

OK now he is just talking rubbish. I think that a very basic examination of the economy would show that there are a number of  areas of growth by small entrepeneurs, none of which involve "getting ink"
 
In the current US economy, one of the biggest growth sectors is tattoo parlors: a non-credentialed occupation, small-scale business, low-paying and thus far immune from corporate control—and selling emblems of alienation from mainstream culture.

I have to call BS as well. Good artists can command top prices and make over 100K per year. Average artists can be in the 60K range. The limiting factor is how well the business is managed. Well managed shops are hugely profitable, poorly managed ones not so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top