Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Political Online Push

June 17, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When Jon Stewart asked Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty last week for some examples of how he intended to administer “limited and effective” government, the Republican governor did not roll out boilerplate rhetoric on welfare or farm subsidies. Instead, he took square aim at traditional higher education.

“Do you really think in 20 years somebody’s going to put on their backpack, drive a half hour to the University of Minnesota from the suburbs, haul their keister across campus, and sit and listen to some boring person drone on about econ 101 or Spanish 101?” Pawlenty asked Stewart, host of "The Daily Show."

“Can’t I just pull that down on my iPhone or iPad whenever the heck I feel like it, from wherever I feel like it?” he said. “And instead of paying thousands of dollars, can I pay $199 for iCollege instead of 99 cents for iTunes?”

This was not a new tune for Pawlenty; in 2008, he challenged the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) to more than double the percentage of credits it awards for online courses, setting a goal of 25 percent by 2015.

But Pawlenty’s reprise of this overture last week on "The Daily Show" and several other news outlets marked the first signs that Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful, could make online education one of his talking points. Although the Minnesota governor has made no formal announcement, many believe he will make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012.

This makes his portrayal of traditional higher education as anathema to government efficiency, and of mobile-based online education as the cure, a potentially controversial flashpoint for the national conversation about distance learning. Pawlenty's mainstage advocacy of online education comes at a time when several other state higher education systems, notably in Pennsylvania and Indiana, have sought to leverage online technologies to cut costs. In Pennsylvania, some faculty members are viewing with alarm an idea being pushed in the state system to use technology to combine foreign language and other programs across several campuses. In Indiana, the addition of a Western Governors University campus -- in which credit is awarded online for demonstrating competencies learned -- is supplementing existing campuses.

Pawlenty’s Pet Project

Pawlenty’s effort to spur the expansion of online education in Minnesota’s public universities has shown some promise. When the governor set the 2015 goal for 25 percent of MnSCU credits to be delivered via predominantly online courses (i.e., those that include no more than two face-to-face meetings per semester) back in November 2008, that figure stood at 9.2 percent. It now stands at 12.5 percent. Officials at MnSCU say that is a significant leap, especially so given that the system has grown its overall enrollment by 10 percent over those two years.

It does not, however, put the system on track to reach the 25 percent online credit goal by 2015 — unless “blended courses” are included. Adding blended courses, the current rate jumps to 17.1 percent, up from 11.9 percent in 2008. The system has a low bar for what courses qualifies as “blended”: it classifies as such any course in which at least one class session per semester is held online.

In any case, the proportion of educational credits being awarded by Minnesota’s public colleges is on the rise, and the goal to “increase access and student success through online learning” remains a part of the board of trustees’ official action plan. The system is also building interactive training modules designed to help prepare professors to teach online more effectively, says Patrick Opatz, the chief operating officer for MnSCU’s online learning system.

Faculty Concerns

Some faculty members have found Pawlenty’s push distressing. Rod Henry, president of the Inter Faculty Organization, a MnSCU faculty union, says professors are concerned that Pawlenty’s drive toward online education might unduly increase their workload and compromise quality.

Henry cited the widely acknowledged fact that online courses are more work-intensive to teach than face-to-face ones, and said some professors, including himself, have had to teach online courses on top of their existing teaching loads. “You can do that sort of thing one semester perhaps,” Henry says. “But over time, we believe quality will suffer.” Currently, the way online teaching is counted toward workload varies by campus, system officials say: Sometimes an online course will be counted as part of the faculty's normal workload, and sometimes online students will count as "overload," meaning the professors get paid extra on a per-student scale (which is not as much as they would be paid if it were counted as a regular course). The union has lobbied for a system-wide standard for nearly a decade with no success, Henry says.

Opatz, the online education administrator, says professors are largely moving their courses online voluntarily, not because of any orders from above. But Henry suggests this is a misleading portrayal of faculty enthusiasm.

How it works, Henry says, is that academic administrators at the system’s 54 campuses tell departments, particularly ones that cost more money than they bring in, that they need to find some way to boost their enrollments — the implication being that departments that fail to do so could see their funding cut as the system looks for ways to streamline its operations in light of diminishing funding.

The threat of phasing out modestly-enrolled programs is a reality at other state higher-education systems: Pennsylvania is planning to use online education to combine degree programs across its public universities — a move that is expected to lead to job cuts among faculty members on the individual campuses whom the move would render extraneous.

The only way that MnSCU faculty looking to avoid that fate can boost their own numbers is to go online, Henry says. So while some professors might be glad to make the shift, many are doing so "voluntarily" simply because they feel they have no choice. This could be damaging in the context of a sweeping effort, Henry says, since “online does not seem to work equally across all disciplines and all students.”

What is worse, he added, the faculty was not consulted before Pawlenty made his pronouncement and the board codified it.

Rigging the Debate?

The University of Minnesota, as the state flagship, tends to have more independence than MnSCU. But when Pawlenty promulgated his plan for MnSCU in 2008, he did encourage a similar push on the University of Minnesota campuses. And with the governor now on the national stage, J.B. Shank, an associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, is concerned. And he says a lot of his colleagues are, too.

Specifically, Shank says he is troubled by Pawlenty’s framing of the issue as a battle between pro-efficiency, pro-technology students of the “iPod generation” and stodgy, ivory-tower luddites who care more about self-preservation than lowering barriers to higher education.

“Technophilic talk is a pernicious distraction,” he says, “because it allows for a certain kind of justification for not giving the university the money it needs to provide the kind of education it wants to provide.”

Shank is not the only observer troubled by Pawlenty's online-education evangelism on "The Daily Show." In a column for MinnPost.com yesterday, reporter Sharon Smickle picked apart the governor's comments, saying that quality online education costs substantially more than the $199 figure Pawlenty quoted, without qualification, to Jon Stewart. Smickle observed that individual courses at the Minnesota-based online for-profit Capella University cost between $795 and $1,035, and that during hearings in the Minnesota legislature, experts had testified that to do distance education properly is "neither cheap nor easy."

There is a conversation to be had about the role of online education in lowering the costs of certain segments of higher education, Shank says. But the broad-strokes manner in which Pawlenty seems to be painting the issue on the national stage is not a good starting point, he says. Dubious math aside, the subtext of the governor’s narrative is that a liberal arts education is either obsolete or undeserving of state support, Shank says. This should strike educators as alarming, he says, since online learning platforms are inadequate venues for the sort of extemporaneous Socratic exercises in critical thinking that lie at the core of the liberal arts. (Shank cited a recent column by New York Times columnist David Brooks exalting the societal value of the liberal arts, and pointed out that Pawlenty himself is the product of such an education.)

Henry, too, said he thinks the national conversation on online higher education might be better served if Pawlenty framed it with a little more nuance.

“What he should have said,” Henry says, “is, ‘We have these technologies, and we’re going to help you use them where you think it’s appropriate in consultation with the administration… We want to make sure what we’re doing is pedagogically sound, and that we’re giving students [the quality education] we say we’re giving them.' ”

For the latest technology news from Inside Higher Ed, follow Steve Kolowich on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Political Online Push

  • Oh, yeah ...
  • Posted by F. Castle on June 17, 2010 at 6:00am EDT
  • " .. professors are concerned that Pawlenty’s drive toward online education might unduly increase their workload and compromise quality .."

    .. versus sitting with 650 of your favorite friends in an auditorium. Gimme a break.

    There's an alternative to those concerned about workload and "quality." Find another job. Enough people leave, things change.

    BTW: the governor is a U-MN/Twin Cities lifer. He knows of where he speaks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty

  • Falty premise
  • Posted by Sean Lancaster , Associate Professor at Grand Valley State University on June 17, 2010 at 7:15am EDT
  • In reality, most professors across higher education are not teaching a giant lecture of 650 students; rather, most are teaching smaller classes (e.g., we cap our classes in education at about 30). I am a strong proponent of online teaching and learning, but I also push for quality. When the move to online is being made to save money then rarely will you find that quality is being maintained.

  • courage and integrity
  • Posted by saponte on June 18, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • How surprising : a politician tries to score political points against the stuffy professors in an anti-intellectual, anti-scientific cultural climate where evolution is a matter of faith, global warming is a hoax, nazis=communists, functional illiteracy is ok, and a university education is just a commodity (just like a shiny ipod OMG!)... oh, and where an expert in his or her field is "some boring person" and a politician is an authority in higher education, self-made and self-proclaimed.It must take great moral courage and intellectual integrity to take on the nerds.

  • Posted by Steve on June 17, 2010 at 8:30am EDT
  • Pawlenty is just another anti-intellectual ignoramus playing to an anti-intellectual crowd that assumes college profs are over-paid, underworked elitists who don't really care about students or education. There are certain things that just don't work well as online courses, for example, Spanish 101. And ultimately, in most cases, face-to-face teaching trumps online. Online is an inefficient means of communication: students can't see or hear me, and I can't see or hear them, at least not without cams, speakers, and microphones, and the personal touch is lost. Face-to-face may cost more, but it's worth every additional penny.

  • ever think
  • Posted by anon , onlooker on June 17, 2010 at 8:45am EDT
  • D'ja ever think y'all might take yourselves too seriously? Tim Pawlenty's wife has served on a university board of trustees; they're both lawyers; they are both "intellectual," while fiercely practical. They are in fact very concerned that Minnesota have a strong educational system, recognizing that the state cannot be competitive in the future without a strong higher education system. Did any of you ever think that the governor might be demonstrating a sense of humor about higher education? That he might have a real sense of irony?

  • Orwell was right
  • Posted by theron on June 17, 2010 at 9:00am EDT
  • Big Brother's dictum: "Ignorance is Strength" plays out in MN, Texas and throughout the U.S. as state funding to State schools is cut, the Fed looks to business models and education has become a commodity.

    Perhaps I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but this story is particularly depressing. it casts a pall on what I do and what I value.

  • Questions about Online courses
  • Posted by Curious on June 17, 2010 at 9:30am EDT
  • What "widely acknowledged fact that online courses are more work-intensive to teach than face-to-face ones"? This is news to me. I thought it was the reverse. Why else has UoP been able to scale up their operation so dramatically over the years?

    Profs "teach online courses on top of their existing teaching loads. ... Currently, ... an online course will be counted as part of the faculty's normal workload, and sometimes online students will count as 'overload,' meaning the professors get paid extra on a per-student scale (which is not as much as they would be paid if it were counted as a regular course)." So, are bounty incentives at work here?

    Online courses do "not seem to work equally across all disciplines and all students.” Can anyone substantiate this?

    What evidence is there that the educational quality of online courses are equal to or better than face-to-face?

  • Campus is Community: more than class
  • Posted by Jim Murray , Business Systems Director, Academic Advising at Indiana University on June 17, 2010 at 9:45am EDT
  • The campus experience should go beyond just work in the classroom, and moving higher education to the web is no substitute for a vibrant academic community experienced face to face. For many students, higher education is but one aspect of an ongoing developmental process, and one which the campus experience is uniquely able to enrich. Richard Light wrote

    "When we asked students to think of a specific, critical incident or moment that had changed them profoundly, four-fifths of them chose a situation or event outside of the classroom."

    There is no substitute for young minds for lunches with faculty, meeting a Nobel prize winner in the hall and having a chat, working in class with that professor who transforms your worldview, or seeing that visiting lecturer or a play which leads you to appreciate things you'd never even considered before.

    Please also consider the tens of thousands of international students who come to study with us, learn to love us in the process, and take that home with them. Good luck establishing that kind of community online.

    When higher education is finally reduced to fully being a commodity, thanks to those like Mr. Pawlenty, it will no longer be higher ed, it will be 'training.'

  • It's not an either/or question
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at StraighterLine on June 17, 2010 at 3:48pm EDT
  • The point that is being missed in the debate is that college and high school students have a range of course-level educational choices that didn’t exist a decade ago. Like other well-developed markets, these courses have different features with different cost structures.

    However, the funding and payment structure for students is, more or less, a one-size fits all model where all courses are priced the same (or close to it) that is maintained by state and federal student funding policy. Depending on the subject matter and the individual, there are times when online learning is a better choice than face to face learning. There are times when it isn’t. However, with a wide range of choices available, the student is the one who should be making the decision about the type of course he or she wants AND how much he or she is willing to pay for it.

    Today, because federal and state financial aid flow to institutions as opposed to individual courses, the student must pay for any courses outside of their institution with out-of-pocket money – a significant disincentive to shop for better-priced courses. Also, the articulation system is byzantine at best which is a further disincentive to shop for better-priced courses.
    Lastly, because of the multiple sources of government funding and tuition discounting, the true cost of a course bears almost no relationship to the price of that course. For instance, most freshman level or developmental courses are taught by adjuncts to anywhere from 20-100 students. Adjuncts, if they are lucky, will make about $3000 per course taught. Apart from labor, all other costs are either overhead or born by the student. Excluding overhead and student born expenses, these courses usually cost less than $100 per student to deliver, especially online. When state and federal subsidies are added to tuition and fees, the price for these courses is anywhere from $1000 - $3000.

    This “profit” margin subsidizes other parts of the university, some of which may be justified and some of which are not, some of which may be used by the student purchasing the course and some of which may not. This enormous “profit” margin will not be able to be maintained in a market where there are many, many more competitors than ever before. Lastly, I admit that I have a dog in this fight as my company, Straighterline, is doing the “iCollege” right now. We offer freshman and developmental courses at prices that maintain a relationship with the course’s cost structure.

    We are deliberately not accredited (though our courses have been reviewed by ACE), but we have a variety – 4 year public, 2 year public, private and for-profit – of regionally accredited colleges that will award credit for our courses. Because we can’t be accredited (among other barriers only full degree programs, not individual courses, can be reviewed), students wishing to take advantage of lower prices must pay out-of-pocket. In a way, this is an accreditation tax on students who don’t have any out-of-pocket money to spend. The “iCollege” is already here. The question is whether public colleges and policy makers are ready to let their states’ citizens have easy access to these courses.

  • "intellectual"
  • Posted by saponte on June 17, 2010 at 9:45am EDT
  • Since when does a spouse's service on a university board of trustees, a law degree (valuable as it may be) and political posturing (...) make one an authority on higher learning?

    By the way, the proposal to turn the university experience into a twitter feed does not exude the slightest hint of irony or humor (and kinda' disqualifies you for tinkering around with education).

  • What is education and what works cognitively for students?
  • Posted by C Ostrowski , Professor at an unnamed community college on June 17, 2010 at 10:15am EDT
  • Of the two big problems I see in Pawlenty's position on education, I'll first deal with the one that (while I'm writing) I haven't seen addressed yet here in the comments: students' cognitive needs. While auditorium-size classes may not be the optimum means by which students in general can learn, as someone has already said, not all classes are that size: they often are the 101 courses, and they often also include labs and/or discussion/workshops sections (both of which involve more individual interaction with an instructor).

    Further, if an instructor is boring, that person will be boring in an auditorium, a small classroom, or a podcast. And while there may be minimal (and sometimes no) discussion and student participation in large lectures, there's at least a human presence--not only the instructor, but also the other students with whom there can be some kind of face-to-face interaction.

    With online courses, yes--there is interaction: however, it's primarily if not exclusively via writing--a form of communication that, in my years of experience, I've seen most students displaying an aversion to (and many problems with). Long distance interaction/relationships (of any kind) can work, but are they optimum?

    And how do students learn? More than once in the entire interview (including the non-aired parts available on The Daily Show's website), Pawlenty objected to what he characterized as a "one size fits all" approach (not only to education, but also to, for example, Social Security). In the same way that instructors of traditional courses need to attempt to take into account different learning styles (as best as we can in a system that makes individualized education impossible), so would online education.

    However, when I advise students during registration, most of the students to whom I suggest online courses reject that option because, as they say, they know that they don't have the discipline to be able to follow through. Others say that they need the physical presence of others in order to learn. And others--including those who are texting as they enter and leave my office--don't want to deal with the technology (now there's some irony for you).

    Pawlenty is not a professional in the area of education; thus, he's unfortunately bought into the commodity view of education he said that in education, which he characterized as a delivery of a service, as well as in other things, we need to "put the consumer in charge." From his outside position, he sees it as a "command and control . . . bureaucracy"; I'll grant that there can be far too much bureaucracy in higher ed--but usually the "stuffy professors" aren't part of it. However, almost all institutions and human systems involve bureaucracy.

    So, how does he envision education: as a totally individual enterprise, the same way that people buy I-tunes? Pick and choose what one likes? What about what a person needs? If a person is entering a field, that person presumably doesn't know anything about it; how can they know what they need? Is there any kind of measurement of learning? How does a student prove that they have mastered the material?

    He seems to be seeing education solely from a financial perspective (along with the stereotyped view of the boring, stuffy, self-important lecturer--and when he was discussing his views on education, he had quite an earnest, serious look on his face and tone to his voice--not the joking demeanor he had later on in the webcast portions of the entire interview). He unfortunately isn't looking at the full picture of what the purpose of education might be, as well as students' (and educators') needs.

  • Welcome to the Real World
  • Posted by Rethinking , Adjunct on June 17, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • For far too long tenured higher ed faculty have enjoyed lifetime career appointments with automatic raises, amazing benefits and one term off each year. At most institutions, the grapevine tells the truth: some faculty are out of touch, prefer research to teaching, dislike students and/or do nothing to improve their teaching. At my institution, there are numerous tenured faculty milking the public teat and the institution is waiting for them to retire or die. Programs suffer, students disappear, but the public "servant" keeps doing what he/she has done for the past 25 years. Untouchable, protected and unaccountable once tenured is not healthy for an individual or an institution.

    The governor's simplistic online ed suggestion is not the solution but more likely a response to an antiquated system that allows for mediocrity.

    As an adjunct instructor for the last 20 years, I have had to work hard to keep my part-time status. I am fully aware that there are tenured faculty doing incredible work - that does not justify lifetime appointments.

  • Just the facts please
  • Posted by Distance Learning Professional , Distance Learning at Northwest State on June 17, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • I was watching the Daily Show when Pawlenty made his online education pitch and was appalled. Unfortunately as someone who has done a great deal of research into online education (my Ph.D will be in online learning) and who works in the trenches managing an distance learning and instructional design center at an institution, Mr. Pawlenty is not adequately apprised of or knowledgeable on the subject.

    First, an adequately designed and taught online course takes more time to teach than a face-to-face course. The reason? Interaction and engagement. Because online courses are not synchronous (at least they shouldn't be), asynchronous methods such as discussions forums/postings must be used to create community and adequately asses learners grasp of subject matter. These discussion posts must be read and thoughtfully commented on by the faculty teaching them. Many are graded. This takes time. In addition because online tests are essentially open-book, other assessment methods, usually writing intensive ones are used. Again, time intensive.

    Second, Time is money. It takes more resources and time to convert existing face-to-face (f2f) courses to online. F2f courses, or course-packs that are summarily dumped on to the online venue are not best-case and resemble correspondence courses at best. These courses do the opposite of well-designed online courses, their rigor suffers, and they isolate students rather than build community, interaction, critical thinking skills and engagement. Creating multimedia also takes time and money. Depending upon subject matter, courses should include well-designed multimedia (visual & verbal modes) can also enhance content transfer. Not just multimedia for multimedia's sake, but interactive content created to assist learners in grasping and assimilating content.

    Lastly, Not all students learn well online (maturity, self-motivation, computer/online access, technical skills) and not all faculty teach well in this venue (teaching style, technical skills). A one size fits all mentality will do great harm to the quality of education students receive.

    All in all I find Mr. Pawlenty's comments uninformed and based on personal opinion rather than research (a.k.a the facts as we presently understand them). Great for politics and sensationalism in these budget cutting days, but bad for those who have devoted their lives to the education of students.

  • refocusing the discussion
  • Posted by tom abeles , editor at on the horizon on June 17, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • When one needs transportation, one has a choice of a basic model or a logo-sporting luxury sedan. For universities, one could go to a public institution or one could choose a private, medallion, university's on-campus experience and the benefits of a "branded" diploma. In today's world of social networking and its increasing sophistication, on-line learning is more than the virtual classroom just as on-campus learning is more than the physical classroom. Both are different versions of the "game" of education where the virtual world of education and community is the new frontier. Social scientists tell us that there is not a "magic circle" that separates game worlds and virtual spaces of various social media from the brick spaced world. . Thus, the "i-campus" becomes the world of the internet unbound by physical space and limited only by bandwidth and imagination. With the increasing emphasis on international education and service-learning within traditional brick-spaced institutions moving education into a global environment, it becomes an increasingly smaller step across the barriers whether they are geo-political boundaries on the planet or electronic boundaries crossed with one's iPad rather than an Airbus. The walls around the ivory tower have been breached and the guilds have lost control much as happened with the printing press. Christensen's model of innovation points clearly to the issues facing the current educational model. The public now has larger choices as to how they gain knowledge and where they will choose to obtain that experience, not just for a 4-6 year degree but over a life-time. As Clark Kerr noted, the university falls on a line between the Agora and the Acropolis; only, today that line borders both click and brick space

  • SUMMERS "OFF" BECAUSE MY CONTRACT IS FOR 9 MONTHS, NOT 12
  • Posted by Prof Who Loves To Teach on June 17, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • Rethinking, your position is ill-founded --- in my term "off" I design courses, write articles, review other work, learn what is new in my field: those are all things that make my teaching better and livelier. Research and teaching are complementary activities; where they are in competition, I agree that's regrettable and not serving students. But that doesn't describe all research. You do realize that without research there wouldn't be jack-all to teach, right????

    AND my salary is a 9-month salary. So anytime you're willing for your job to just pay you for 9 months, feel free to tell me how mine works. If you can find a job that requires more years of training and has a lower average salary than college prof, I'd love to know about it.

    There was a great letter in the star-tribune from a UM student who said she'll be glad to haul her keister across campus, that her professors are interesting, not boring, and that she wants a real, in-person education. Thank God a few students can still tell the difference. Pawlenty's careless, anti=education comments reek of an uncommitted B- student who got educated merely to get ahead, and views it as a certification process. Minnesota used to be word-renowned for the quality of our education, from K through grad school. Now we're just another gutted state, robbing our children and grandchildren to keep taxes lower for the selfish lugs who benefitted from past sacrifices but don't care to make any of their own. Pawlenty is the poster child for that.

  • Let the marketplace decide
  • Posted by Nematoda on June 17, 2010 at 11:45am EDT
  • I reckon that Pawlenty is a fan of the market. If so, he should be satisfied in letting the market decide what direction post secondary education should move. There are, after all, a number of universities that rely exclusively on online delivery for their courses. If these universities offer a superior educational experience and an attractive price point, then I assume students will abandon traditional universities en masse. If enough students go this route, traditional universities will eventually respond by refashioning their programs.

  • Hybrid Learning
  • Posted by Julia Lupton , Professor of English at UC Irvine on June 17, 2010 at 11:45am EDT
  • So far, research on the quality question indicates that hybrid courses combining on-line and face-to-face instruction are the most effective. And yes, good on-line courses are expensive to design and take more time to teach (if there really is an instuctor on the other side). Additional costs include supporting the infrastructure (tech support for faculty and students alike). On-line is great for improving access to educational opportunities (for people in rural or underserved areas, for working people, for the housebound),and certain programs can increase their enrollments this way. But it is not a substitute for college.

  • Seen this coming
  • Posted by Cynic on June 17, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • The instructional (labor) costs of online education will come down as they're outsourced to India/China, just as they have in other industries.

  • Do as I say, not as I do
  • Posted by F. Castle on June 17, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • " .. Since when does a spouse's service on a university board of trustees, a law degree (valuable as it may be) and political posturing (...) make one an authority on higher learning?"

    Careful. This could be Mr. & Mrs. Owe-bama. Re-check the "Guide to Political Correctness."

    As for the "quality" of education -- it is more the students overcoming the unaccountable, uncaring tenured and bureaucracy than any else. Next: U.S. health care.

  • Arrogance and Ignorance
  • Posted by Margaret on June 17, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • While the US seems to delight in denigrating education and making fun of anyone with a decent education, the rest of the world continues to educate themselves. It is not surprising that India, China, etc. are kicking our teeth in economically. And, as other nations are willing to appreciate education and work hard, more power to them, they deserve success! Some Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and want to follow leaders who think we are entitled to lead the world just because they are rich white folks. When enough Americans recognize "libertarianism" as they next version of, "I've got mine, to H with you", then perhaps we will make progress. Unfortunately, I think we are going to swim in this filth for a number of years. A young academic would be well advised to consider a career abroad.

  • Truthiness
  • Posted by Bartholomew on June 17, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • " .. It is not surprising that India, China, etc. are kicking our teeth in economically .."

    Uh .. Comrade .. there's a truthiness issue here ..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

    Gosh. In spite of the best efforts of the Obamas, the USA is still out-performing China 3-1. Time to grab some more industries.

  • The Future of Higher Ed
  • Posted by frankly speaking on June 17, 2010 at 1:30pm EDT
  • It seems to me that four forces are converging: the ubiquitous availability of information, the business model university, federal funding & standards, and education as primarily training for the workplace. Exactly how these forces will play out remains to be seen. In the 19th century, every town had a theater for stage productions. Stage actors like the Booth brothers were some of the highest paid people in the country, the celebrity set of the day. However, in the early 20th century, moving pictures began to displace the stage. A play could be filmed once and reproduced without the cost of actors and sets via film. Forty years ago when I went to college and graduate school, professors by and large were keepers of knowledge. They often had unique access to original sources of information via professional relationships, specialized journals, or rare resources locked away in an inner chamber of the library. Like the High Priest of Israel, they would go into the inner sanctuary and come out with knowledge and wisdom. Their unique proverbs and diagrams were circulated among their mentored students. Their influence seeped slowly into the larger world of knowledge. But now, factual data, even rare original sources (Dead Sea Scrolls posted online), government data and records (available through FOIA requests), corporate data (once so secret that due diligence pension investment excluded stocks - now posted on EDGAR), etc. are all available online. The college professor's notes and diagrams are easily duplicated via PowerPoint and shared broadly. College students no longer consider professors the expert keepers of knowledge. I say all this to say that the very best teachers, those who are master teachers, will always have students who want to take classes with them face to face. However, the day of the professor who essentially provides a guided reading through a text book, teaching the basic vocabulary or simplest principles of a field, is numbered. The acquisition of basic information and basic skills can be done better online. I think we are headed toward an economic future in higher education in which, ultimately, certain star professors will teach in house classes and be greatly rewarded. Other professors will continue to be stars for other reasons: research, fund raising, political patronage, unusual specialties, etc. This will be the tenure track of the future, but with much less job security than today. These professors will be highly paid like the 5% of the acting profession. Others will find themselves modestly paid for providing structured online learning, using a prepared curriculum. Still others will find themselves in the part-time world of adjunct teaching doing remedial classes, advising, etc. These folks will likely be employed in other jobs outside the profession, like the 95% of the acting profession. I also think that any outsourcing shift will be temporary. It won't take long for instructor wages in the US to decline to compete with the rise of wages overseas competitors (maybe a decade). I think that is in large part what is happening right now in the current worldwide economic restructuring. In ten years, I predict that the US standard of living will more closely resemble the standard of living of the next lower tier economies around the world. Those who have thought it unfair that we have so much while others have so little will have their day. We will have less, much less. Higher education, so desperately dependent on tax money, will reflect this trend as all the economic players (students, fed & state government, corporations) realize that costs must be brought down. At some point, paying for expansive brick and mortar campuses just won't make economic sense. In 50 years, campuses will be all but gone, like the stage theaters of the 19th century. There will be a few such sites, heavily subsidized tributes to the past. Online, blended classes, non-traditional credit, classes on work sites, etc. will become commonplace.

  • Oh, Tim...
  • Posted by Anonron , Big Bad Gov't on June 17, 2010 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I'm not going to wade into the distance vs. brick/mortar debate, but only one comment seems to have taken issue with Pawlenty's costing model. As someone with access to cost-per-student data for both a dedicated distance-learning institution and a range of brick and mortar universities, I can truthfully say that distance learning is NOT cheap. Curriculums require constant updates and teaching is labour intensive, while the cost-per-student is in line with brick and mortar institutions - until you get into ultra-expensive programs (e.g. Doctor of Med, Dentistry, or any research intensive graduate program).
    I'm trying to picture future Doctors, Dentists, and neuro-scientists being churned out by the University of Phonix.. oops I mean Phoenix. Sound like a good idea, Tim?

  • Not very creative thinking
  • Posted by Oakfarm , Professor at Loyola on June 17, 2010 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Several problems:

    1. A real creative idea wold be higher-ed vouchers, funding education, not educational institutions.

    2. Unlike the comment above, F2F and on-line learning are not mutually exclusive, unless you mean asynchronous on-line learning. Video-conferencing based teaching is a traditional form of on-line education.

    3. With any type of teaching outside a 'traditional' classroom, learning is less of a problem than is assessment. There's your quality issue in a nutshell.

    4. iCollege or whatever silly form of canned lecture videos is not going to work, period.

    5. It is hardly 'anti-intellectual' to brainstorm solutions to the growing problems -- and missed opportunities -- of the trillion-dollar postsecondary educational industry, and the knee-jerk reactions from those in the industry are not especially helpful.

  • Arrogance and Ignorance Indeed
  • Posted by mb on June 17, 2010 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Margaret wrote: "It is not surprising that India, China, etc. are kicking our teeth in economically."

    True that - India and China do not have the heavy boot heel of labor unions on their neck, inflating the cost of labor beyond all logic and reason. There's a very good argument to be made that that is why those countries are kicking our teeth (or "@ss" as Chairman Obama would say) in economically. Not to mention other factors like those countries not having unsustainable expenditures for entitlement programs, raises and pensions for government workers, etc. , like our country is currently moving at light-speed towards.

    "Some Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and want to follow leaders who think we are entitled to lead the world just because they are rich white folks."

    Careful, that's a clearly racist remark, especially considering that currently a great many number of leaders at the very top are not white, although they are rich (and getting richer via graft, corruption, cronyism, etc.). Yes, some Americans are ignorant and arrogant, and a good number of them can be found in the academy. You think maybe that's why the general populace holds the academy in such low regard these days?

  • It's the Communication Stupid
  • Posted by Dale E. Vitale , Professor/Chemistry at Kean University on June 17, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Who thinks putting technological barriers between students and their instructors makes communication MORE efficient? Raise your hand.

    (For those who raised their hands: try asking your iPod to explain the mechanism of free radical polymerization.)

    DEV (Former Director of Academic Technology, KU)

  • Arrogance and Ignorance
  • Posted by dhume on June 17, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • mb writes:

    "India and China do not have the heavy boot heel of labor unions on their neck, inflating the cost of labor beyond all logic and reason....Not to mention other factors like those countries not having unsustainable expenditures for entitlement programs, raises and pensions for government workers, etc. , like our country is currently moving at light-speed towards."

    Let me ask you, do you think it's desirable for the majority of a country's citizens to live on less than $1 a day? If being "economically competetive" means reducing the majority of American citizens to third-world poverty levels, is whatever gain we make in "competitiveness" worth it?

  • Posted by fluffy at University of Minnesota on June 17, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Pawlenty has ruined the state of Minnesota by slashing and burning everything he can from health care to education. I've been in Minnesota for 15 years and I am currently a PhD student at the UM. And as for those 650 people classes -- I've certainly never heard of one. There may be a few intro to chemistry classes that large, but in liberal arts, the largest intro class I've ever TAed had 80 people in it and all of the classes I've taught were 15-25 people. Don't paint all of academia with a broad ridiculous brush that only refers to a handful of classes and similarly, don't paint students and educators with the same brush. I care very deeply about all of my students, whether I am "just" a TA doing grading and meeting with students (which is part of my education as well) or whether I am the instructor, and I go out of my way for my students, as my evaluations show. The bottom line is Pawlenty is just justifying his outrageous cuts that threaten to turn us into the Mississippi of the North in terms of education.

  • The math does not add up
  • Posted by F. Castle on June 17, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • " .. trying to picture future Doctors, Dentists, and neuro-scientists being churned out by the University of Phonix.. oops I mean Phoenix .."

    And anyone who thinks the average debt of an MD degree graduate of $157,000.00 is economically-sustainable, well, she/he ought to (1) re-take Econ 101 and (2) show the public their math-work papers.

    That would make them smarter than 90% of the Harvard Law/Yale Law grads.

  • Higher Ed for Those Outside the Gate
  • Posted by pithytoo on June 17, 2010 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Pawlenty has two teenage daughters. I wonder if they'll be hauling their keisters to iCollege or to Harvard?

    I also wonder why Pawlenty and so many others assume that easy access to the world's wealth of knowledge so obviously means the death of college? As others have pointed out, libraries have been offering the same free access all along, but college enrollments boom with the non-auto-didacts among us.

  • Tell that to the working class
  • Posted by F. Castle on June 17, 2010 at 7:30pm EDT
  • " .. If being "economically competetive" (SIC) means reducing the majority of American citizens to third-world poverty levels, is whatever gain we make in "competitiveness" worth it?"

    Yes, how terrible the USA is -- 50% of Americans effectively do NOT pay federal income tax (benefits exceed taxes paid) --

    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    Yes, how terrible the USA is. So many of the "poor" die -- from smoking, dope, obesity, booze and "extreme living." Why, O why, are non-Americans illegally entering the USA?

    /sarcasm/

  • Change is already here
  • Posted by KjO on June 17, 2010 at 10:00pm EDT
  • The current period Higher Education is going through can be likened to the Reformation when the advent of the printing press put the Bible in the hands of the people without the mediation of the church. The internet is doing the same thing for education.

    While Pawlenty could be more nuanced [though nuance is no especially greeted with cheers by the Jon Stewart crowd] he seems to be saying, look, things are changing, public institutions can lead the change or we can let market driven educational companies lead the way.

    The reason for Capella, Phoenix, Kaplan, Devry, Westwood, etc. exist is because the public sector has failed to meet the needs of its populous. Instead of working to find ways to reach everyone they brag about how selective they are. Shouldn't publicly funded institutions be bragging about how their teaching methods can help anyone be productive members of society instead of puffing their chests because they "successfully" educate a selective group? Selectivity means you are just certify people who were different to begin with. It does seem a little odd to me, that in a country which abhors discrimination, we are ok with publicly funded educational institutions discriminating on who can and cannot attend.

    Instead of fighting the change the old guard needs to take a good hard look at how to embrace the change. If not, one day soon, they will turn around, and realize their old school method is irrelevant.

  • Online Art Program
  • Posted by bob Onit , Professor at CC on June 17, 2010 at 10:00pm EDT
  • At our community college we have been pushed to offer as many courses online as possible because they generate extra "technology" fees. So we have started offering Painting and Ceramics classes on line. The students watch a demo video and download a powerpoint and then make their art.

    The photograph their art work and upload it to the class website where everyone can have a chance to critique the work.

  • Kingdoms of Arrogance
  • Posted by Tom McArthur , Staff Employee at Eastern Washington University on June 18, 2010 at 12:00am EDT
  • Frankly, I think the Governor is pursuing the wrong solution to a real problem. I believe the importance of face to face teaching overrides any financial savings that might be gained by online instruction. I am concerned we are creating a society of individuals that have no idea how to work with others; how to verbally communicate with others; or how to pull together people with differing backgrounds into a unified group to pursue common goals. You cannot learn that online. You are alone. And while that may be a credit to your personal determination to improve your lot in life, it does nothing to improve your skills in communicating with others.

    I think many of the financial problems in higher education are structural. Like many others I have a problem with tenure. Even faculty at EWU are critical of some of their colleagues who, having attained tenured status, turn into mushrooms. While I appreciate the concept of tenure and its purpose, tenure has become a shield for those who wish to stop pursuing excellence either for themselves or their students.

    My biggest complaint is the lack of oversight from state political leadership right down to the custodian. No one cares if any one is doing a good job or even if they are doing anything. Managers don't care if employees work because their job does depend on it. We waste hundreds of thousands on managers who have little to do. We waste hundreds of thousands on managers whose incompetence would make BP blush. We waste tens of thousands on senior managers pursuing personal perks.

    State oversight boards let schools offer virtually anything they want, regardless if another school already has a program. The duplication of effort results in tremendous waste across the system.
    No one is in charge. Given limited resources, states must look at demanding that schools eliminate some programs that are taught better at sister institutions and take on programs they do better than other institutions. This kind of realignment will strengthen all schools and save states millions.

     

  • Reformation or Renovation
  • Posted by dhume on June 18, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • @ KjO,

    I personally like the Reformation analogy too. Following it through, though, there are two problems it helps us to think about.

    First, a lot of the "Reformation" in higher education has been forced on us by external factors that have nothing to do with the quality of public universities but have gradually destroyed those institutions. The biggest of these factors is underfunding due to the withdrawal of state support. This withdrawal initially had nothing to do with the quality of instruction at public universities; when it began around the mid-1970's American universities were truly the best in the world, hands down. Instead, the loss of state support has happened because of an ideology that demonizes (non-military) public institutions as absolutely evil without distinction and wins support at the ballot box by advocating a poisonous mix of tax cuts and anti-intellectualism; this hits universities from two sides, obviously. This ideology has dominated American politics at least since 1981, and some brand of it is now basically accepted by almost everyone in elected office in this country whether it is actively embraced or merely not resisted. This ideology's solution to every problem is the free market--that's their equivalent of salvation by faith. The dominant ideology rejects all compromise with the public sector. It demands that public institutions must unquestioningly become "like a business." Discussion of the different purposes and needs of the public and private sectors is not permitted. It is presupposed that public institutions are inherently and irredeemably broken, and only the most radical market-driven solutions are desirable or possible. I would never deny that public universities had and have lots of problems that urgently need reform; the unbalanced primacy of research over teaching, outrageous cost, and excessive bureaucracy are a few I doubt anyone would deny. The problem is universities are not being allowed to solve those problems in their own way: state funding continues to decline, forcing institutions to raise costs to students and creating an institutional addiction to cheap labor, for instance. Increases in public support are impossible in this political climate, and because of the institutional shortcomings this creates, the politicians impose more and more bureaucrats (a lot of whom are not educators and are at best well-meaning but clueless) charged with implementing market-driven solutions to the problems the politicians' ideology itself created or worsened. Meanwhile, the perception of outside hostility enables the most anti-reform faction of the faculty to gain ascendancy within the university, so voices calling for change from within are accused of disloyalty and ignored and things get worse year after year. So, KjO, I guess I'd have to say I don't actually disagree with what you wrote but I think it's important to recognize that a lot of the failures in public higher ed are attributable to outside mismanagement. Our irrelevance has been imposed on us.

    Second (if anyone's still reading), the Reformation analogy has a lot to say about the problem of ideologically-driven hatred of academic professionals. It's a lot like the dissolution of monasteries in England. The free-marketers begin with the premise that all of us are depraved, unconcerned for our students or the public good, living the fat life by fleecing the pious-hearted laypeople we secretly despise, and doing no productive work. Before God (I feel like talking like a 16th-century monk now), I swear most of us are not like that. We have misguided brethren, sure, but most of us care about our students, want to make this country a better place, and believe that our work in the university is the best way for us to do that. Yet we're confronted with hatred (and no, I don't think that's too strong a word) at every turn; we're despised by the general public, demonized by politicians, and treated with the most dismissive contempt by the very people who run our institutions. Pawlenty's comments on _The Daily Show_ are a testament to this. For the life of me I can't figure what we've done to deserve it. And it seems that now, as we're cast out of the monastery and our cloisters are sacked to feed our rulers' greed, we're even denied the privilege of mourning for an institution that did a lot of good, and could do more yet if it was allowed to.

  • The Great God Efficiency
  • Posted by RBG on June 18, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • Gov. Pawlenty’s myopia has caused him to overlook a couple of sterling possibilities in his quest for efficiency in higher education. To begin with, the Governor’s goal for 2015 is to mount a paltry 25% of courses on line; it would seem to me that any college or university could effect much greater efficiency by offering 100% of its courses aegis modern technology.

    There are two viable options:

    1) Require every student to read the entry from Wikipedia for any course he/she desires credit for. Next, retain a couple of “boring persons” [i.e., professors] to devise final examinations based upon the Wikipedia entries, and then a couple more “boring” professors to read the exams – quite simply, if the student passes the exam s/he gets credit for the course. This meets the Governor’s stipulation of pulling “down on [his] iPhone or iPad whenever the heck [he] feel[s] like it,” as well as precluding the student’s having to “sit and listen to some boring person drone on.” All this assumes, of course, that the student has already paid the $199 for the i-college course, and not “thousands of dollars” [both Gov. Pawlenty’s figures]. Thus, a department of 20 “boring persons” could easily be reduced to a department of six 6 – a savings of 70%!!! Just think of the savings for a department of 40.

    Gov. Pawlenty might find the second option even more exciting. To wit:

    2) Give each freshman student his/her degree upon entering the college or university. This would enable each student to choose whatever courses he/she might wish to take and to decide how much he/she should study – no sitting and listening to “some boring person,” no required reading, no exams. Under this option, the college or university could eliminate ALL the “boring persons” with one sweep. All that would be required would be a few clerical people to keep the records. Humongous savings! The epitome of efficiency! Of course, awarding of any diploma to a student would necessarily have to be delayed until he/she had paid his/her $199.

    I suspect that some more conservative critics would argue that either of these options might have some negative effect upon the quality of the student’s education. They might even argue that having students of different backgrounds meeting face-to-face in a classroom would develop greater intellectual capacities and more profound social understanding and maturity among these students than iPods or iPhones or other technophilic innovations ever could. Further, they might insist that one-on-one encounters between a “boring” professor and a student might expose the student to a new perspective or even generate an original idea. And heaven forbid, they might even point to the fact that such synergy among students and exposure to new and different concepts and opinions are fundamental to the efficacy of any college or university, and absolutely essential for the future of our civilization.

    Unfortunately, such seemingly cogent arguments pale when one considers the ultimate importance of efficiency. Besides, who am I to argue with a governor.

  • Reality Check
  • Posted by Real Politik on June 18, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • True, Pawlenty, and much of the Republican Party seethe with anti-intellectualism. And, yes, we are moving inexorably to second-world status as a nation through the increasing agglomeration of unchecked corporatism, outsourcing, off-shoring, and technological advancement.

    HOWEVER, most of the discussants are neglecting several essential elements of the undergraduate experience: the development of higher level critical thinking, collaboration, and socialization skills, which occur in and out of the classroom.

    Yes, great professors possess the potential to inspire students to seek deeper knowledge, to challenge the status quo, and stretch their creative potential (perhaps more difficult on an iPod.

    But, survey 10,000 alumni from any decent research university, including the most elite, and you will find, the most often cited, the most memorable student experiences, were not the content of their classes, but the quality of their personal relationships with students, faculty, coaches, and sometimes staff. And, more often than not, these experiences were not the result of drinking, drug-use, or sex. They began in the classroom, on the field, in the lab, the library, in student government, at Model UN, in cultural associations, or with myriad activities which take place AT a college or university.

    Those who believe education is derived solely from the transmission of knowledge in print, online, or through an advance electronic device are missing the point: learning is at its best, when there is a deep interpersonal exchange. And, those who believe higher education is merely about learning are missing an even greater point: higher education connects people -- to learning, discovery, to careers, and most of all, to each other.

    People are more than data points. And, education is more than reading, writing, and arithmetic.

  • Digital Natives
  • Posted by Susan Sawyers , reporter, mother, graduate at The Hechinger Report on June 18, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • I'm with Reality Check.

    For the generation that was born and raised with technology, these
    “digital natives http://www.borndigitalbook.com/ most likely won’t
    find online instruction any more engaging than that which takes place in
    on campus. For the audience that Pawlenty addressed, a college campus
    offers a place to transition independently from adolescence to adulthood,
    to participate in interactive discussions, collaborate or compete with
    peers and the chance to work with instructors who may or may not become
    mentors.

    But in an effort to meet President Obama’s call for an additional five million community college degrees and certificates by 2020, governors may be on to something in offering the notion of iCollege. Something's got to give. For more on the subject, please read our post on The Hechinger Report: The iCollege Campus http://hechingered.org/content/earn-an-online-degree-at-icollege_982/

     

    .

  • Clue Time
  • Posted by mb at Tier 1 Research University on June 18, 2010 at 1:15pm EDT
  • dhume wrote: "Second (if anyone's still reading), the Reformation analogy has a lot to say about the problem of ideologically-driven hatred of academic professionals. It's a lot like the dissolution of monasteries in England. The free-marketers begin with the premise that all of us are depraved, unconcerned for our students or the public good, living the fat life by fleecing the pious-hearted laypeople we secretly despise, and doing no productive work... Yet we're confronted with hatred (and no, I don't think that's too strong a word) at every turn; we're despised by the general public, demonized by politicians, and treated with the most dismissive contempt by the very people who run our institutions. Pawlenty's comments on _The Daily Show_ are a testament to this. For the life of me I can't figure what we've done to deserve it."

    Are you really that naive? All you have to do is skip down to Reality Check's remark and you have your answer. To wit: "True, Pawlenty, and much of the Republican Party seethe with anti-intellectualism."

    Clue time: the kind of shameless arrogance and contempt that most vocal academics have for anyone who leans to the conservative side of the political spectrum (i.e., a substantial majority of the U.S. population) does not engender respect, affection, or favorable feelings.
    I've worked in academia for decades and have been in the closet vis-a-vis my conservative political tendencies the entire time because I know first-hand that being conservative is the kiss of death for an academic career, and on a more broad scale, invites open contempt - and yes, hatred - from most academics. My colleagues consider conservatives, especially Republicans (I'm an independent who leans Libertarian), to be the dumbest people on the planet, when in fact many on the left are at least as, ahem, intellectually 'lacking' as those on the right. (For an example, consider the Democrats who run the city of Detroit and the people who vote for them.) And from my experience, the notion that those who work in academia are the smartest people around is one of the most carefully-guarded urban myths around. Indeed, there are many, many very intelligent people who have no association whatsoever with academia who are light years more intelligent than academics, and many academics who can only be classified as dim bulbs who owe their careers to politics, trendy social fads revolving around so-called "diversity," and other factors not associated with legitimate scholarship. Couple this with the fact that most academics openly embrace blatant institutional racism and sexism against a large percentage of the population (i.e., white males) and one can easily see why there might be a large amount of animosity towards academics by the general public.

    Treating people with contempt, discriminating against them, and calling them stupid when they don't agree with you does nothing to foster positive relationships. Couple this with hypocrisy vis-a-vis the incessant calls for "respect," "tolerance," and other pious platitudes one finds on college and university campuses across the U.S., and you have a recipe for the kind of reception academics get from the 'unwashed masses' outside of the Ivory Tower.

  • Well, I'm schooled...
  • Posted by dhume on June 18, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Thanks for explaining it to me, mb. See, I thought discussions of this sort should be about what's best for students, whether it's in the public interest to privatize and commodify a "product" (education) that had been considered a public responsibility for most of US history, and whether politicians should be allowed to make decisions about education "reform" without ever seeking the input of actual educators. But now I understand it's really about making sure the damn libruls get what's coming to them. That clears things up a lot.

  • Oh Please
  • Posted by mb on June 21, 2010 at 7:00am EDT
  • dhume: Public universities are a relatively new addition to the system of higher education, becoming widespread only in the 20th century. Indeed, in the early days of the republic most colleges and unis were private (see Harvard, Yale, et al.) and many times parochial, so your comment about privatizing something that "had been considered a public responsibility for most of US history" demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of the history of higher ed in the U.S. However, your snarky tone once again demonstrates why most Americans see academics as self-important snobs who live in a world detached from the ordinary day-to-day grind, aka the Ivory Tower, which after all was what I was addressing in my post referencing your (rhetorical?) question. Your contempt for anyone who doesn't share your leftist views is clear (I won't call you "liberal" because most people on the left these days are anything but "liberal" in the classic sense) so you only reinforce my point. Thanks for that.

    Unlike educators, politicians are elected at-large and thus genuinly do represent the public, including educators (who presumably vote too). What seems to get your shorts in a wad is that the politicians don't simply following the directives of unelected academics without question, because we're all supposed to know that only academics are smart enough to make those sorts of decisions. I for one am glad that politicians are asking hard questions re. the state of contemporary higher education because in many ways it has gone off the rails. The arrogance, contempt and intolerance for all but a narrow political philosophy found in the academy is a prime example of this.

  • Thanks for the info on Univ. of Minn.
  • Posted by Swimming upstream , College/Career Advisor on June 24, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • Thank you, Gov. Pawlenty, for the honest assessment of the Univ. of Minnesota's professors. I am a college advisor for high school students and truly appreciate Gov. Pawlenty's comment regarding the quality of teaching at UM. He refers to future students' unwillingness to " . . . haul their keisters across campus . . . and sit and listen to some boring person drone on about econ 101 or Spanish 101?"

    Rarely do we college advisors receive such readily available honest assessment of the quality of education at any university. We usually have to do a lot of leg work to get beyond the glitz normally presented to students. It's a breath of fresh air. Thank you Gov. Pawlenty for saving my students and me a lot of work! I will pass this information on to my students.

  • iCollege and Online Classes...a cheaper future for students
  • Posted by Saba , Student at James Madison University on July 20, 2010 at 2:00pm EDT
  • As a student myself I think this is a great idea. I like Pawlenty's thoughts on the online push for higher education. I have many friends who will be in debt for a long time just because they wanted to graduate with a degree for a prestigious university . I've taken online classes through my university and they are a lot of the times more beneficial then being in a class with 75 people while the professor lectures on for an hour. iCollege could be a great option for those that can't afford to go to college because online classes would cost less. There are cheaper options already out there one of them being StraighterLine which only offers the classes for $99. I think that these options are perfect for people who can't start college right away and need to save money or find the means to afford college. Pawlenty's idea could help a lot of people get a higher education in the future. In the meantime other options for those people that can't afford college are out there.