Will Higher Education Crash and Burn?
Seth Godin
has a post on his blog called "The coming melt-down in higher education (as seen by a marketer)" that has gotten a lot of attention in the education community online.
He starts out by saying, "For 400 years, higher education in the US has been on a roll. From Harvard asking Galileo to be a guest professor in the 1600s to millions tuning in to watch a team of unpaid athletes play another team of unpaid athletes in some college sporting event, the amount of time and money and prestige in the college world has been climbing. I'm afraid that's about to crash and burn."
Godin hits higher education with some issues and trends that those of us in higher ed recognize. Some of these have gotten buzz before, perhaps under the heading of university/learning/school 2.0 or do-it-yourself universities
or something similar. I have posted about a number of these trends, like the gap between the cost of education and the economic payoff. But Godin, a marketer, particularly hits on the efforts of colleges to play in his field. He criticizes poor, non-differentiated marketing campaigns, accreditation issues and how schools try to to "game" rankings like those from U.S. News.
Maybe he's setting himself up for new clients in higher education marketing - a field that exists in a much bigger way than in that last century.
When I read some of the reactions to his post by education people, they seemed very defensive. I think it might be better to talk about how we might address some of his points, because they are real issues.
Economics and budgets have been the big topics on campuses this semester, especially here in New Jersey, and terms like the "higher ed bubble" and the end of the higher ed “boom years” are in the conversation. Certainly, the days of the huge college-bound populations and a robust economy are gone.
I hear more and more about schools moving to more adjuncts and less full-time faculty, and about cutting programs that are not "profitable" (they might say "sustainable" in the announcement).
Godin lists 5 things in his post:
1. Most colleges are organized to give an average education to average students.
2. College has gotten expensive far faster than wages have gone up.
3. The definition of 'best' is under siege.
4. The correlation between a typical college degree and success is suspect.
5. Accreditation isn't the solution, it's the problem.
Let me look at the idea in his #3. I'm reacting here as a parent who had two sons go through the admissions process. I wondered, as does Godin, at why colleges sent tons of mailings to my sons that all looked pretty much the same. He sees its as "some of the most amateur and bland direct mail I've ever seen" but he also hit a nerve for me when he guesses that one reason that some schools do it is because they need to reject more applicants. "The more applicants they reject, the higher they rank in US News and other rankings," he says. When I went to Princeton University to do the admissions tour/talk with my one son, we actually overheard one of the staff tell a parent (who was concerned that the talk had implied that "anyone" could apply) that it was necessary to have a large applicant pool to get that "highly selective" ranking.
Will higher education crash and burn or melt-down? Will the bubble burst on the ed industry? I doubt it will be that harsh or that sudden, but I certainly can imagine a very different college and college student in the next decade or two.
has a post on his blog called "The coming melt-down in higher education (as seen by a marketer)" that has gotten a lot of attention in the education community online.He starts out by saying, "For 400 years, higher education in the US has been on a roll. From Harvard asking Galileo to be a guest professor in the 1600s to millions tuning in to watch a team of unpaid athletes play another team of unpaid athletes in some college sporting event, the amount of time and money and prestige in the college world has been climbing. I'm afraid that's about to crash and burn."
Godin hits higher education with some issues and trends that those of us in higher ed recognize. Some of these have gotten buzz before, perhaps under the heading of university/learning/school 2.0 or do-it-yourself universities
or something similar. I have posted about a number of these trends, like the gap between the cost of education and the economic payoff. But Godin, a marketer, particularly hits on the efforts of colleges to play in his field. He criticizes poor, non-differentiated marketing campaigns, accreditation issues and how schools try to to "game" rankings like those from U.S. News.Maybe he's setting himself up for new clients in higher education marketing - a field that exists in a much bigger way than in that last century.
When I read some of the reactions to his post by education people, they seemed very defensive. I think it might be better to talk about how we might address some of his points, because they are real issues.
Economics and budgets have been the big topics on campuses this semester, especially here in New Jersey, and terms like the "higher ed bubble" and the end of the higher ed “boom years” are in the conversation. Certainly, the days of the huge college-bound populations and a robust economy are gone.
I hear more and more about schools moving to more adjuncts and less full-time faculty, and about cutting programs that are not "profitable" (they might say "sustainable" in the announcement).
Godin lists 5 things in his post:
1. Most colleges are organized to give an average education to average students.
2. College has gotten expensive far faster than wages have gone up.
3. The definition of 'best' is under siege.
4. The correlation between a typical college degree and success is suspect.
5. Accreditation isn't the solution, it's the problem.
Let me look at the idea in his #3. I'm reacting here as a parent who had two sons go through the admissions process. I wondered, as does Godin, at why colleges sent tons of mailings to my sons that all looked pretty much the same. He sees its as "some of the most amateur and bland direct mail I've ever seen" but he also hit a nerve for me when he guesses that one reason that some schools do it is because they need to reject more applicants. "The more applicants they reject, the higher they rank in US News and other rankings," he says. When I went to Princeton University to do the admissions tour/talk with my one son, we actually overheard one of the staff tell a parent (who was concerned that the talk had implied that "anyone" could apply) that it was necessary to have a large applicant pool to get that "highly selective" ranking.
Will higher education crash and burn or melt-down? Will the bubble burst on the ed industry? I doubt it will be that harsh or that sudden, but I certainly can imagine a very different college and college student in the next decade or two.
Comments
No comments