Scan barcode
Reviews
The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere by Kevin Carey
deecreatenola's review against another edition
3.0
Kevin Carey is a good writer and I found this book easy to read and get into. The pace is good and the language is accessible. Unfortunately, despite all that, I just didn't buy his premise.
I agree that that modern research university does a disservice to its students. Universities of this type are designed around the research and students are something of an annoyance that gets in the way of the research, albeit a necessary annoyance since their tuition pays the bills.
But his idea that students will soon begin avoiding traditional colleges for the range of massive online educational opportunities just doesn't seem likely.
One of his arguments is that it's more cost effective to design, say, a biology course and share the teaching and content online with thousands of students at one time instead of 100 or 150. He almost seems to suggest that we only need ONE such course, or just a few. But do we all want the exact same education? Isn't this the problem with chain restaurants and banks buying banks: less choice?
In his promotion of MOOCs and similar large-scale online ventures, he completely ignores the college seminar. He seems to suggest that all courses can be taught on a large scale. But you would never get in a digital course for thousands the same kind of critical give and take that you get in a seminar consisting of 8, 10, or 12 students. That is an essential element of college, in my opinion.
I also do not buy the fact that employers will suddenly forgo the need for recognized, accredited degrees; that badges and certificates earned online will replace degrees from familiar universities.
He points out a lot of flaws in our current higher ed system, the skyrocketing costs being one of them. I don't disagree with most of what he shares, but I don't think MOOCs and other online options will replace physical colleges and universities. Higher ed institutions need to change, they need to move with the times and be more open to digital methods of teaching. They need disruption. We may even lose some colleges and universities in this process, but it's not the same sort of change as when the car replaced the horse and carriage. We aren't going to abandon brick and mortar schools for online ones.
He also does not address the transitional role that colleges play for students. He makes a lot about wild fraternities, drinking, etc., but for all the headlines colleges provide a lot more, especially today when so many (too many) parents helicopter their kids and don't let them grow up. Kids often need that transitional space.
One last thing. He seems to feel that most if not nearly all colleges and universities provide terrible education and that As are given out like candy. That was not my experience and I don't think it's the experience of most students today. And I certainly don't see online education becoming MORE rigorous than brick and mortar schools. Transitioning to a largely online method of higher ed would be disastrous to many students who need that physical, face-to-face support to keep them motivated and engaged. Social media is no replacement for physical community. Online learning WILL play a role in our educational future. It just won't play THE ONLY role in our educational future.
I agree that that modern research university does a disservice to its students. Universities of this type are designed around the research and students are something of an annoyance that gets in the way of the research, albeit a necessary annoyance since their tuition pays the bills.
But his idea that students will soon begin avoiding traditional colleges for the range of massive online educational opportunities just doesn't seem likely.
One of his arguments is that it's more cost effective to design, say, a biology course and share the teaching and content online with thousands of students at one time instead of 100 or 150. He almost seems to suggest that we only need ONE such course, or just a few. But do we all want the exact same education? Isn't this the problem with chain restaurants and banks buying banks: less choice?
In his promotion of MOOCs and similar large-scale online ventures, he completely ignores the college seminar. He seems to suggest that all courses can be taught on a large scale. But you would never get in a digital course for thousands the same kind of critical give and take that you get in a seminar consisting of 8, 10, or 12 students. That is an essential element of college, in my opinion.
I also do not buy the fact that employers will suddenly forgo the need for recognized, accredited degrees; that badges and certificates earned online will replace degrees from familiar universities.
He points out a lot of flaws in our current higher ed system, the skyrocketing costs being one of them. I don't disagree with most of what he shares, but I don't think MOOCs and other online options will replace physical colleges and universities. Higher ed institutions need to change, they need to move with the times and be more open to digital methods of teaching. They need disruption. We may even lose some colleges and universities in this process, but it's not the same sort of change as when the car replaced the horse and carriage. We aren't going to abandon brick and mortar schools for online ones.
He also does not address the transitional role that colleges play for students. He makes a lot about wild fraternities, drinking, etc., but for all the headlines colleges provide a lot more, especially today when so many (too many) parents helicopter their kids and don't let them grow up. Kids often need that transitional space.
One last thing. He seems to feel that most if not nearly all colleges and universities provide terrible education and that As are given out like candy. That was not my experience and I don't think it's the experience of most students today. And I certainly don't see online education becoming MORE rigorous than brick and mortar schools. Transitioning to a largely online method of higher ed would be disastrous to many students who need that physical, face-to-face support to keep them motivated and engaged. Social media is no replacement for physical community. Online learning WILL play a role in our educational future. It just won't play THE ONLY role in our educational future.
bookmoon's review against another edition
2.0
Full disclaimer: This a completely biased rating based mostly on how much I liked the book and how much I agreed with the message.
This book caught my eye at my local library, and I went into it expecting not to like it. I am from the Bay Area, so I am tired of hearing about how great Silicon Valley is, and how technology is going to solve all of our problems and bring everyone together while still making a few people vast sums of money. (Even more tired than I am of the phrase "the university of everywhere"). Though I loved my 4 (recent and cheap) undergraduate years, I know that many people aren't as lucky as I was when it comes to their college experience and price.
Carey does provide an interesting history of the American University system, which I did enjoy reading. However, his portrayal of the future of education is far too idealistic for my tastes. He spends most of his time talking about the hybrid university, but wavers between defining this as all modern accredited colleges, or as only those expensive universities obsessed with their own prestige that all smart kids (and their parents) want to attend (until this new online alternative comes to fruition, of course). He does briefly admit qualities that an online education can not provide, such as getting away from home and learning to take care of yourself, interactive lectures that are actually affected by student questions, forming connections with fellow students and professors, and learning/practicing hands on skills (ie chemistry and medicine). However, he does not adequately explain how these important aspects of college will also be provided for a reasonable cost. Additionally, I can't see how online institutions will make admissions unbiased for everyone, as one can't just assume that in the future, everyone will have equal access to these resources. Sure, the geniuses may benefit, but there can never be too many geniuses (or the word would lose its meaning). Furthermore, Carey admits that the main goal for companies that provide online courses is to make money, not to provide equal education. If such a system ever did become the norm, what's to stop them from raising prices once people don't have other options? And how would they ensure the quality of teaching?
This whole system also assumes that everyone takes classes because they want to learn these things, and not because they want to graduate with a job. Many people enter college not knowing what they want to do with their lives, so I think that the initial one size fits all GE curriculum and the freedom to choose many different classes does have some value. Plus, certain classes are useful to take (such as public speaking, critical analysis, logic, statistics, etc) even if people don't necessarily want to take them or realize their value. A lifetime of education sounds good to me, but I can't see it becoming the norm.
Perhaps if this book had had a less subjective tone, I would have enjoyed it more. However, Carey seems to suggest that this is not only the way that the future of education is heading, but that it is (perhaps the only) right way to proceed, regardless of any loss of culture, jobs, or even complete fields of study that may occur.
This book caught my eye at my local library, and I went into it expecting not to like it. I am from the Bay Area, so I am tired of hearing about how great Silicon Valley is, and how technology is going to solve all of our problems and bring everyone together while still making a few people vast sums of money. (Even more tired than I am of the phrase "the university of everywhere"). Though I loved my 4 (recent and cheap) undergraduate years, I know that many people aren't as lucky as I was when it comes to their college experience and price.
Carey does provide an interesting history of the American University system, which I did enjoy reading. However, his portrayal of the future of education is far too idealistic for my tastes. He spends most of his time talking about the hybrid university, but wavers between defining this as all modern accredited colleges, or as only those expensive universities obsessed with their own prestige that all smart kids (and their parents) want to attend (until this new online alternative comes to fruition, of course). He does briefly admit qualities that an online education can not provide, such as getting away from home and learning to take care of yourself, interactive lectures that are actually affected by student questions, forming connections with fellow students and professors, and learning/practicing hands on skills (ie chemistry and medicine). However, he does not adequately explain how these important aspects of college will also be provided for a reasonable cost. Additionally, I can't see how online institutions will make admissions unbiased for everyone, as one can't just assume that in the future, everyone will have equal access to these resources. Sure, the geniuses may benefit, but there can never be too many geniuses (or the word would lose its meaning). Furthermore, Carey admits that the main goal for companies that provide online courses is to make money, not to provide equal education. If such a system ever did become the norm, what's to stop them from raising prices once people don't have other options? And how would they ensure the quality of teaching?
This whole system also assumes that everyone takes classes because they want to learn these things, and not because they want to graduate with a job. Many people enter college not knowing what they want to do with their lives, so I think that the initial one size fits all GE curriculum and the freedom to choose many different classes does have some value. Plus, certain classes are useful to take (such as public speaking, critical analysis, logic, statistics, etc) even if people don't necessarily want to take them or realize their value. A lifetime of education sounds good to me, but I can't see it becoming the norm.
Perhaps if this book had had a less subjective tone, I would have enjoyed it more. However, Carey seems to suggest that this is not only the way that the future of education is heading, but that it is (perhaps the only) right way to proceed, regardless of any loss of culture, jobs, or even complete fields of study that may occur.
sprague's review against another edition
3.0
Good overview of the kinds of education that will replace overpriced colleges of today.
radballen's review against another edition
5.0
Mind blowing look at the rapid advances in online education and the problematic way in which modern universities are constructed. Lots to ponder and discuss here. Definitely worth reading.
matttrevithick's review
4.0
Read this well paced book cover to cover on a flight without putting it down - it's an engrossing read. It makes a convincing argument that the era of the university as we know it is, more or less, drawing to a close because the current system - which he argues persuasively is grossly ineffective, astonishingly expensive, and generally incoherent - is collapsing under the weight of its own ridiculousness. I found myself nodding along - as I would guess anybody who has gone to college since the mid 1990s would too - to his highly interesting story about how we ended up where we are, and where we'll go from here. It tells the story of how the 'research university' came into being, and how universities have been the literal sole exception to the general rules of things becoming more affordable and commonly accessible - until now. The short version? Universities cannot prove they teach the majority of their students anything in particular (and his explanations of this using case studies is very amusing), that the obsession with PhDs is senseless, and that the entire model of teaching students - unchanged from Plato's days of master standing before students - can be proven not to work. I found particularly interesting the section documenting the myriad of tests showing distance / digital learners learn the material better than students in the room (I certainly was a skeptic).
In its stead, a whole new era of learning is coming, based on major advances in behavioral psychology and taught via increasingly intelligent machines who are learning exactly how people study and learn, drawing on more than five decades of data with experiments that started in the 1950s (I loved the section on developing five separate approaches to an elementary school class - each arrived at the same point, but got their differently to take into account the major different learning differences) and delivering a superior product - for a fraction of the cost.
The author skewers many - my own alma mater included - and I wish had spent more time on the concerns of this system and gave a little more voice to its critics (his enthusiasm for the education revolution is on most pages) given the documented difficulties of Udacity, Coursera, Fathom.com, and others in making students learn or stay engaged. His romantic obsession with MIT for pioneering this revolution could be calmed down a bit (several friends and even my own dad have said they received a far less than ideal education there). And the profit motive and its implications for education surprisingly went unexamined. But the big idea seems solid - and falls exactly in line with what I've heard from my own discussions with university administrators discussing the coming revolution. And I can't help but smile at the profiles of the Silicon Valley folks trying to start it - billionaire investors, genius college dropouts, hundreds of startups, and a whole lot of righteous fury at a major pillar of inefficiency in America - the education system. I can't wait to see what they do.
In its stead, a whole new era of learning is coming, based on major advances in behavioral psychology and taught via increasingly intelligent machines who are learning exactly how people study and learn, drawing on more than five decades of data with experiments that started in the 1950s (I loved the section on developing five separate approaches to an elementary school class - each arrived at the same point, but got their differently to take into account the major different learning differences) and delivering a superior product - for a fraction of the cost.
The author skewers many - my own alma mater included - and I wish had spent more time on the concerns of this system and gave a little more voice to its critics (his enthusiasm for the education revolution is on most pages) given the documented difficulties of Udacity, Coursera, Fathom.com, and others in making students learn or stay engaged. His romantic obsession with MIT for pioneering this revolution could be calmed down a bit (several friends and even my own dad have said they received a far less than ideal education there). And the profit motive and its implications for education surprisingly went unexamined. But the big idea seems solid - and falls exactly in line with what I've heard from my own discussions with university administrators discussing the coming revolution. And I can't help but smile at the profiles of the Silicon Valley folks trying to start it - billionaire investors, genius college dropouts, hundreds of startups, and a whole lot of righteous fury at a major pillar of inefficiency in America - the education system. I can't wait to see what they do.
bookwormmichelle's review
4.0
This was pretty interesting! The author chronicled the rise of our higher education system, which can't decide whether to be a reputational, research, teaching, or jobs-certifications program. We spend insane amounts of time getting kids ready to race to the "best" institutions, chain them to huge unsustainable loans--and often, can't really account for how much they actually learn while they are there for the "magic" four years. (Or five. Or six.) He then traced recent developments in cognitive science, in availability, interviewing many of the movers and shakers and even taking an EdX MOOC himself. He believes we are entering a transition phase, at the end of which the unshakable four-year hybrid college institution will be nearly destroyed. He does believe this will take more time, but he envisions possible futures of students spending varying amounts of time focused on learning different things, perhaps in person, perhaps online, with instructor and student contact or without, perhaps living at home or in dedicated learning environments, taking courses or doing hands-on research and learning, collaborating, being mentored, serving, traveling, documenting learning with course completions and open badges, and returning to learning often as needs and interests change instead of doing all "education" in a four-year window. All for much less money and much less wasted time. Sounds good to me! It'll be interesting to watch what happens, even if it all is too late to affect my own kids. (Warning to those figuring on supporting themselves as tenure track professors at physical colleges or universities---may want to rethink that strategy if Carey is right!)
More...