Disrupting Traditional Post-Secondary Models: Reflections on The Economist’s Higher Education Forum, by Kayla M. Johnson

On October 22, 2015, I attended The Economist’s Higher Education Forum in New York City. Press pass in hand, I walked into a large, modern banquet hall filled with people who at first glance looked much more important than me. I sat at a small round table to the left side of a small stage where in a few moments executives representing IBM, and administrators from Arizona State University and Purdue University would share opening remarks to a room full of faculty and administrators from every type of higher education institution.

As a vested waiter brought me a garden salad, vegetarian quiche, an assortment of steamed seasonal vegetables, and my choice of artisanal beverage (for breakfast), my eyes wandered around the room, observing my colleagues for the day. They were mostly men, mostly older, and mostly white. As a 25-year-old blonde, white female in black stilettos, I did not exactly blend in with the crowd. And it showed as the day went on.

Throughout the Forum, I attended several panels focusing on the ways in which the landscape of higher education is changing. From alternative forms of credentialing, to the battle between STEM and liberal arts education, the Higher Education Forum left me thinking three things: higher education is changing in very interesting ways, there is a lot missing from these conversations, and this whole event really seemed a bit much considering the budget crunches felt at many institutions. This essay is a compilation of my reflections on the day.

Is Technology Making Higher Education More Student-Centered?

Arizona State University’s Chief Academic Technology Officer, Adrian Sannier, believes it is. He argued that technology allows universities to teach each student to scale, or within their respective zones of proximal development. This more personalized education creates a mores inclusive environment that is responsive to the scheduling, support, and curricular needs specific to each individual student. By embracing technology, universities are also communicating with students through a medium the students know best.

However, the perceived distance between others and myself in the room reflected a certain disconnect between them and the students they are professing to serve. I introduced myself as a doctoral student, and subsequently spent the day answering run-of-the-mill questions like: “Do you like it at Penn State?,” and (yes, really) “What do you want to be when you grow up?” Their unwillingness, or perhaps their inability, to connect with me, a representative of the age group they have been discussing all day, on a professional or even academic level (as they did with each other), demonstrates how much they misunderstand the capacities of students today. I am not proclaiming to be the typical student, but if these old white men cannot even talk to a millennial, how can they know what they need to succeed? “Speaking the language” of technology is not how to connect with millenials. And commenting that their shoes and hair are “too cute” also does not do the trick. Instead, administrators should try genuinely to understand and respect millenials, rather than trying to mimic them in the classroom with video games, YouTube videos, and new academic social media platforms.

Big Data, or Big Brother?

Brent Drake, Chief Data Officer for Purdue University and a self-proclaimed big data fanatic, claimed that machines have intuition that predicts success, much like a human can, but better. He posited that the collection and use of big data across university campuses enables the early detection of students who may be struggling, subsequently allowing for intervention. Big data was a big topic throughout the day, and one on which no one seemed to disagree. Simply by crunching the numbers, big data allows universities to track student enrollment, progression, participation, and practically any other element of their time at the institution.

As I began to realize that my own administrators would be monitoring my every move in the classroom, I wondered about the privacy concerns that big data may evoke. Despite Sannier’s reassurance that big data does not create a “surveillance environment,” I still pondered the impact of such strict overseeing of students at a time when they should be becoming more independent. The panelists were quick to say that chronic distrust of big data often inhibits its successful implementation; the status quo of data use in K-12 to identify failing schools and teachers has given big data a bad name. Instead, Sannier argued that big data should operate more like the healthcare system—diagnosing issues, treating them, and preventing them from occurring in the future. I still wonder though, if we never let students fall down, how will they learn to pick themselves up?

Which Are More Important: Hard Skills or Soft Skills?

One of the most heated conversations during the Forum focused on the training for and acquisition of “hard” versus “soft” skills. Hard skills, or more vocationally oriented skills such as software coding or graphic design, took precedence in the discussion. In fact, in a debate over the merits of vocational training versus a liberal arts education, the majority of the audience decided that the next generation should be better trained within their specific disciplines in order to resolve the “jobs crisis.”

Interestingly, those same individuals also decried millenials for their inability to adapt to workplace environments. They didn’t fault millenials on their ability to program computers. One panelist said, “We hire on hard skills, but we fire on soft skills.” Soft skills, such as interpersonal communication and leadership, were described as difficult to quantify and impossible to teach, and nearly everyone agreed that millenials were severely lacking them. As I imagined 100 pairs of eyes staring at the back of my head, I wondered three things: 1) If not at the university, where should soft skills be acquired?, 2) Why can’t employers adapt to their new employees?, and 3) Take a long, hard look in the mirror (and at the liberal arts diplomas on your walls)…

“Where is diversity in this conversation?”

Microphone in my shaking hand, I posed this question during a mid-day panel focusing on foreign models of higher education. The question was directed at Ms. Haiyan Wang, a senior administrator for a Chinese university who stated that the lack of achievement in American higher education came down to three things: students should spend more time studying, parents should be more involved and push their children to do better, and schools should focus more exclusively on STEM disciplines.  In other words, America should be more like China.

Ms. Wang’s comments are not incorrect. Studies show that students who spend more time studying or who have parents that are involved in their schools are more likely to graduate (Marin 1990). However, Ms. Wang’s comments fail to acknowledge the complex roles that race, gender, socioeconomic status, and the like play within American higher education. Cultural and social capital are incredibly influential for student achievement, and to say that every student CAN study more or that every parent CAN be more involved ignores the realities of many Americans.

Ms. Wang, like myself, was an anomaly in the room. It is no wonder that diversity was missing from this conversation; almost everyone there was wealthy, white, and old enough to retire. As if higher education administration is not white and male enough, the event sorted out the rest by charging an arm and a leg for a ticket and by hosting it in the most expensive city in the world. Perhaps if the demographics of the people in the room better reflected the demographics of the students in the institutions they supposedly serve, then these conversations would not fail so grossly at acknowledging the beauty that is diversity in American education.

Is Higher Education Still Worth It?

Moderator and The Economist International Editor Helen Joyce posed this question to a panel of business executives from IBM, The World Bank, and the salary-reporting corporation PayScale. World Bank’s Harry Patrinos adamantly answered yes. Globally, he said, the returns on investment for education are incalculable (which was an interesting statement for someone from The World Bank to make).

But in order for higher education to be accessible to and an enjoyable experience for everyone, there needs to be more inclusive dialogue between administrators, faculty, and even students. As Patrinos said, “If you don’t complete college, you might as well not have gone in the first place.” I would amend this statement by saying, “If you don’t complete college and learn something meaningful, you might as well not have gone.” Today’s world requires quality education that responds to the diverse needs of its citizens. Enrolling students is not enough. Tracking their participation through vocationally oriented courses is not enough. We must work to provide culturally-responsive education that is inclusive to everyone.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, Forum participants concluded that higher education is still worth it. The growth in new technologies presents exciting new opportunities for universities wanting to enroll and retain more students. Big data allows universities, particularly large ones, to identify and rectify student needs faster than most professors can. But as the Forum’s title suggests, these new technologies are disruptive, and universities must be nimble enough to respond to disruptions before they are consumed by them (Christiansen and Eyring 2011). Thus, we need further development and discussion of their potential impact on higher education as we know it. .

We must also be cautious of distilling the lives of students to numbers. Forum attendees preached that big data and technology make learning more personalized, but when we remove our students’ unique identities and replace them with random identifiers, education becomes impersonal. We should be educating the whole person, and holistic education requires interaction, intervention, and imagination. Maybe a machine can do that—but for me, I’ll take the traditional model any day.

References

Christiansen, Clayton M., & Henry J. Eyring. (2011). The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marin, Patricia V. (1990). Graduating and dropping out of high school in the South Bronx. New York: Baruch College/City University of New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319852).

Kayla Johnson is a managing editor for the American Journal of Education. She is a Foreign Language and Area Study Graduate Fellow and a dual-title PhD candidate in Higher Education and Comparative and International Education at Penn State University. Her research focuses on learning outcomes of international experiences, campus internationalization, and education abroad program design.