Three models for a new higher ed economic model (part 2)

This has been some time in coming. I wanted to think through some of the options based on my earlier post on this issue.

In reviewing all the factors, I wanted to develop an economic or funding model that could be implemented sooner, rather than later. However, I realized that I have seen at least 3 models in use that have been effective over the last decade. So why reinvent the wheel? Two of the models are based on a large component of instruction being distance learning based, the third is more traditional.

Pure distance learning and assessment based higher education

The first model is based on a local university that was developed out of the New York state civil service training department. Often civil service workers, who did not have higher ed degrees, received training that was equivalent to a university course. Recognizing that those that received this training should be able to receive college credit, a system of testing and granting college credit for the training was established.

Approximately 10 years ago, a Swiss university bought out this service, adding there own model on to the established service. Currently, the university identifies online courses, creates its own courses, and creates a standard curriculum, all of which are based on a examination process. Students actually pay for exams rather than the courses themselves. This means that a student may not take any course, as long as they can demonstrate knowledge through the exams. Students that opt to take instruction through the university will pay for those courses. Students can also submit courses, training, and instruction to receive credit. However, they will need to pass the exam for the criteria laid out for their degree.

This allows a standard learning outcome to be used, with several options by the student (depending on their circumstances including access to courses, resources, location, learning needs) to fulfill the curriculum requirements. This also means that there is a minimal instructional staff, with most of the staff working on assessment and curriculum development. There are some area specialists who help in the curriculum development, but they are only used on an as needed basis. An instructor does not have to be a Ph.d. in the area in which they are teaching, but rather need to be effective instructors. This is because the subject matter is already developed by specialists in the form of assessment tools and curriculum. This also always the university to be more flexible based on the students' learning needs and goals.

One disadvantage to this model is that most of the students are learning in isolation. This also requires a great deal of motivation on the part of the learner to arrange for those courses/learning that will best help them pass the assessments. In addition, a great deal of resources go into the monitoring and revision of curriculum and assessment tools.

Individualized learning plans

Another local university in which I have worked uses an individual learning plan. The first course a student takes is a three credit course in which students sit down with a "mentor" and outline their learning objectives. They then plan how they will achieve these objectives academically. There are usually three options: test out, small group tutorials (face to face at learning centers), or online courses. A fourth option is an independent study, but that is used rarely. Unlike the model above, there are set courses which students must complete. Only a certain percentage of those courses can be assessments (either CLEF or assessment of real life experience).

Unlike a traditional university, there are no "departments". Rather there are designated "Area Specialists" who are in charge of a group of faculty (tenured and part-time). These specialists often are part of programs such as labor relations, healthcare, nursing, teaching, and humanities. In other words, they are more profession oriented and broader than a traditional university department. Because this is a state university, there are general education core courses that students must have to be granted a degree. However, if enough students are interested in a specific area, the mentors can ask the area specialists to develop a tutorial in that topic.

In this model, new specialties can be developed within an "area" that a traditional department might have difficulty with. In addition, students can flow in and out of the university as needed (an open university model). Most of the students work full time. One disadvantage of this model, like the one above, is that there is not a single "campus". Unlike the model above, however, students can develop a sense of "college" at their college centers, having tutorials with other students, and establishing a close relationship with their mentors.

Another disadvantage of this model is that it is very labor intensive. For the model to work, the mentors need to be knowledgeable about course options, adult learning, and have constant contact with their mentees. In fact, one reason I don't teach there anymore is that the pay scale was ridiculously low, with faculty being paid by the size of their student load (i.e. a class of 5 had a pay scale much lower than a class of 25. Someone that taught 5 classes to 5 students would make the same as person who taught 25 students in one class, even thought there was more time commitment for the 5 classes).

Traditional model

The fact is that many who go to school full time do so as much for the social aspects of being part of a campus as for the academics. In order to change the traditional model of education, there would have to be a cultural change, which could be difficult at universities that have been steeped in their culture for many years.

My current university used a very successful model to change this culture and cross disciplines and departments in order to integrate technology into its instruction. Basically, it was structured by creating a pool of funding to hire faculty who were adept in instructional technology. Each department was required to either train a current faculty member, identify a current faculty member with a technology specialty, or hire a new faculty member who had expertise in educational technology. Once this core group of faculty were established, they received tenure within the technology group (not their department, per se). This meant that if there was a need for one of these faculty in a certain department, they might be reassigned to that department or courses within that department. For example, one of the faculty members in the dept of communication also had expertise in information technology. As there were two within the communication department who were part of the technology group, one of them went over to information technology when one of the designated faculty members left the university. This same person also taught some courses in the school of business when the designated technology person in business took his sabbatical.

Imagine, for example, if this same model were used for Communication Skills, Creativity, Critical thinking, scientific inquiry, or writing (often the areas of core courses). This would allow a university to have tenure track faculty who could teach interdisciplinary courses without fear of cannibalizing a department. Smaller departments could go to the "centers" to find faculty that could teach courses in their department. General Education courses could be offered through the "centers" so that there would be a guarantee of having a pool of faculty to draw on for these courses, which may not be money producers, but are vital to the degrees. However, outside of the "centers", faculty expertise (specialties) could be offered within the departments. In addition, new areas of study, which might not fall neatly into a department, could be developed within the centers.

Unfortunately, with a new administration, the traditional culture and departmental structures proved to have to strong an influence and we have now moved back to the traditional departmental structures where departments fight for resources and/or are pitted against each other to keep "tenure track lines" for their department. For any of these models to work, faculty, administrators, students, and stakeholders (including employees and alumni) need to be open to a new way of funding higher education. Using a "business" model will never work as "knowledge" is becoming less and less a commodity that is possessed and more and more a necessity that everyone is working with.

A new economic model for Higher Education: Part 1 history

More and more people have recently been writing about a new economic model for higher education (Andy Coverdale, Clark Quinn, and Tom Haskins, just to name a few). However, as we grapple around the world with how higher education should be structured and funded, we aren't willing to reexamine the underlying beliefs upon which the funding and academic structures were created. Now is the time to begin to look at the basis of the traditional structures and how they have changed, and the current needs in a new structure that will fit Higher Education's needs.

The History of Higher Education in the West

Higher education came out of a belief that only those within power should have access to knowledge. The knowledge included philosophy, history, stories (literature), music, etc... In other words, the humanities. This made sense as only those who were rich and powerful would have the time to study subjects that did not necessarily contribute to every day economics of that time: agriculture, warfare, trade skills. Often, those that were educated were the spare sons. This allowed powerful families to control what knowledge was passed down and how that knowledge would be perpetuated.

The advent of the printing press allowed for knowledge to be transferred from location to location in greater amounts. Still, higher education was only for those who were "scholars". The economic reasons for this was that the serf system allowed powerful families to maintain their power, and knowledge was perceived as a commodity to be controlled by those families who had power, land (thus resources), and a means to control their serfs.

Adam Smith developed the principles of Capitalism as the economy, in the form of the industrial revolution and the age of mercantilism, changed the need for knowledge within the economy. No longer was a person's wealth tied to family (birth), but also know how, skills, and the ability to understand the complex systems outside of the local environs. People were "human capital" and became mobile, something that was not possible under a serfdom. More importantly, a person could go to a university, if they were clever enough, and "gain" the knowledge that was originally set aside for children of the wealthy and powerful landowners.

There was also a shift towards science and the creation (think industrial revolution) of products, tools, and technology as people moved away from their sources of substance (food, water). Soon, in places like the US, there was the recognition that knowledge was a commodity that, when invested, could lead to power, riches, and opportunities. In other words, the university was one means to "acquire" the knowledge that could be used to participate in the economy. However, up until the end of the 20th century, higher education was still perceived as something that could be withheld or distributed, thus allowing some to "possess" the knowledge and then use that to be successful in the economy.

During this period of time, knowledge was also perceived as being individual. An individual could pass knowledge on to other individuals. If an individual did not do well in a class, it was because that individual, even though they had access to knowledge, was not able to use it because he or she was lacking in some way (not smart enough, not motivated enough, looking for the wrong type of knowledge that would be useful for that individual). The university was a way to train future leaders in the economy, and as a result, universities decided on who would have the most potential, which subjects to study, and what would be the most useful for the economy. This is one reason why so many universities eventually became government run. The university was a means to implement public policy.

However, also during this time period, the economy changed to one in which corporations, not individuals became the structure within which the economic decisions were being made. While there has been a lot written and criticized about corporations, they have had an impact on how business is done and who controls resources. Adam Smith's theories included an explanation of motivations based on the serfdom model in which the individual landowner would have a self interest in making sure that those within his or her community were taken care of. However, as communities became mobile, and companies no longer had individuals, but rather a collective making decisions, his theories no longer are true.

New Basis for Economic Model for Higher Education

Much work has been done in the last two decades on the knowledge economy. In addition, during the 20th century, there was a realization that the economic principles of the past were not fitting the economic realities on the present. With this in mind, any new economic model for higher education will have to take the following premises in mind:

1) Knowledge is no longer just in individual "thing" possessed internally. Knowledge can be collective (within an organization for example), be located externally (via the web for example), and time dated (it can be irrelevant the moment it is created).

2) Humans are no longer "capital" that can be or are expected to be moved around to take advantage of opportunities. When they do move, often it is based on many factors, most of which may not be quantifiable. Humans don't always make "rational" decisions. And societies in the 21st century have (for the most part) recognized that individuals have the right to make decisions about their education, work, where they live, and what they do with their free time.

3) Every individual has the right to education and literacy. It no longer (for the most part) should be limited to just those born into power and privilege.

4) Knowledge and services are major contributors to the economy. The basis of many of our jobs is the ability to learn new skills and apply both individual and collective knowledge to a situation.


As a result, it is clear to me that the current capitalistic model used currently to decide what we should be doing with higher education is no longer relevant. My next post, I will try to present some of my ideas on what a new economic model should include.