Some context: The Education Portal website lists "10 universities with the best free online courses." These range from the famous (MIT's Open Courseware project or Standford's on iTunesU) to the obscure (Kutztown University of Pennsylvania). Admittedly, the vast majority of these constitute course content, which is not the same as a course, but some are fully-realized courses.
Juxtaposed against that headline is WIRED's March 2008 cover story "Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business." WIRED Editor in Chief Chris Anderson lays out a case for the economics of free, and does so compellingly (be sure to watch the short video), in all manner of business enterprises from "banking to gambling." Alphabetically, and I think conceptually, higher education fits into that continuum.
Consider these ideas:
When Google turned advertising into a software application, a classic services business formerly based on human economics (things get more expensive each year) switched to software economics (things get cheaper). [WIRED]It cannot be argued that higher ed is currently a "classic services business" that has been getting more expensive each year. The question is, at what point does higher ed become a "software application"? The answer may be troubling to most faculty, but I think it is "sooner than you think."
I won't repeat Anderson's economic arguments, except to point out that he is basing much of it on the rapidly-declining costs of three key technologies: processing power of computers, bandwidth, and storage. For some business segments, these have reached the tipping point of being negligible - that is, something that can be given away - for free. He also points out that Web 2.0 companies such as Google that embrace the economic potential of free are doing very well.
Now, what about college can be seen as a "software application"? Courseware, for one, as shown by the list of colleges offering open courseware online. Records management. Learning communities, which are effectively the same as social networks.
Traditional colleges are having a hard time coming to grips with this. A Ryerson University freshman is facing charges of academic misconduct for creating a chemistry study group using FaceBook. What bothers the university more, I wonder? That the students used FaceBook, or that more students used the FaceBook group than the "officially sanctioned" study groups who meet in person?
Now, a bit more about public education. States invest billions in public financing for higher education. Ohio budgets around $2 billion per year as the state share of instruction. So states are assigning some measure of "common wealth" - that is, worthy of investment for the common good. What is the common good? Two-fold, at least: an educated and engaged civic populace, and a prepared and creative workforce attractive to industry. Provide an educated workforce, the argument goes, and you attract business development, which generates more tax revenues, which pays for the investment over the long run.
Despite honest efforts to control the cost to the student, though, higher ed tuition has continued to skyrocket. Why? Because we are still delivering education in a 20th century, "classic services business" model that can't scale with the efficiency that a 21st century, Web 2.0, information-based service can.
What would be required to transition higher ed into a zero-tuition model?
First, a true, statewide system brand (not a logo - just no differentiation between a course at (whatever "at" means in the internet era) Edison vs. an equivalent course at Ohio State.
Second, last-mile broadband to rural residents, which again may be solved sooner rather than later with technologies such as WiMAX.
Third, competency-based instructional design that values learning networks, collaboration and contribution over content-coverage or activities without context.
Fourth, labor-efficient means of meaningful assessment of authentic learning.
Fifth, tiers of value-added premium services that will be paid for by individuals (tutoring, access to lab equipment, and other "extra" learning resources; licensure preparation and validation; career counseling and placement; advanced professional degrees, maybe) and businesses (talent matching services - think eHarmony for job openings; certifications; custom training and programs for employee development).
Chris Anderson again:
From the consumer's perspective … there is a huge difference between cheap and free. Give a product away and it can go viral. Charge a single cent for it and you're in an entirely different business, one of clawing and scratching for every customer.Think about what it would mean if higher ed in Ohio "goes viral" - everyone who wants it, gets it. No barriers. No excuses (at least, no financial ones). The question changes from "how will you go to college" to "why aren't you." Workforces get trained. Citizens get educated. Learning networks crisscross the state, the nation and the world. New business ventures spring from minds connected only by the internet.
Seen in this context, it seems foolishly counterproductive to have 50-some state-funded colleges and universities in Ohio competing - scratching and clawing - for every student.
One final quote from Chris Anderson:
There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later. Free shifts the economy from a focus on only that which can be quantified in dollars and cents to a more realistic accounting of all the things we truly value today.Reputation and attention are the other currencies of the free economy, not just cash. Should Ohio be concerning itself with tuition dollars and the "costs" of higher ed, or do we truly value the kind of society we can become if higher ed is accessible by all who want it? I can only begin to imagine the kinds of value that accrue to a society that chooses to educate all its citizens (we kind of think that anyway - K-12 is provided to every child, with no tuition costs; if 12th grade is no longer adequate, and there are good arguments that it is not, then why do we not extend the tuition-free education model upward?).
Oh, and to take a phrase from my buddy Steve - one more thing. How long do you think before a private institution such as University of Phoenix or Capella figures out this free thing?
