Reader comments
Universities will be 'irrelevant' by 2020, Y. professor says

166 comments | Read story

SJ | 10:48 a.m. April 21, 2009

I am currently enrolled in an on-line graduate program from a school in the SEC. My last semester was extremely brutal. Things many of their professors do to overcome the distance aspect include: providing the lectures on DVD and posting the lecture notes on-line. To gain the benifit of discussion, they divide the class in to discussion groups and we had to post answers and comments to a weekly question or topic. The discusions often got to the point where the instrutors had to tell us to move on because we were still discussing topics 2-3 weeks later and we needed to focus on the current week.

Education VS University | 10:55 a.m. April 21, 2009

The problem with Universities is that they are more interested in the prestige of being a University than in providing Education. Take BYU for example, professors get up talk for an hour about their research even though it hardly applies to the subject of the class, then they assign you five hours of homework and expect you to go to T.A. sessions where the TA goes through the assignment question by question showing you how to do it. The student gets an "A" on the assignment and repeats the next week. Every few weeks a paper is due, which the TA grades. Then you take a test which the professor wrote 25 years ago as a new professor, or he borrows from a teacher who teaches the same course. Students cram the night before, take the test pass and forget everything the next day...that's why we have the much dreaded "comprehensive final" Which is becoming more rare because so many students can't handle them because in reality they didn't learn anything the whole course. But they get the credit, and the professor gets to do their research.

It is a joke, and needs reformation.

Do both? | 11:01 a.m. April 21, 2009

I'm sure you can do both. How much engagement between professors and students occurs in a 900 person class? Not much. Can Bio 100, Econ 110, and many entry level classes be put online? Yes. Can the upper level classes meet in person. Yes. Do a hybrid of both. I value the in person experience I'm getting in my on campus MBA program at Arizona State - but not all of it needs to be in person. One of THE most valuable courses I took was a hybrid - Thanks Norm Nemrow for Acc 200 at the very relevant BYU (which is head and shoulders above ASU academically, but that can be left for another post).

Comments continue below

Home School Success | 11:21 a.m. April 21, 2009

The suggestion that home schooled children are socially retarded is the opposite of my experience. I know many, many home schooled children who are almost all among the most balanced, confident, mature and well educated youth I have had the privilege of knowing. While there may be some bad examples, the vast majority of those I have observed personally make me wish our public schools could do as well. Taking responsibility for one's own education is fundamental to home schooling, and brings an early maturity and confidence lacking in many of the other youth with whom I am acquainted.

Social skills are not dependent on public education, but on healthy interactions with others with well-developed social skills. Most home schoolers that I know are involved in many activites that provide better socialization than a typical public school classroom ever could.

By 2020? | 11:33 a.m. April 21, 2009

Colleges and universities are irrelevant today!

Years ago, they priced themselves out of the market by treating professors and administrators like rock stars or oriental potentates. Those lush offices and 6-hour workweeks get expensive.

Even when they're teaching, they aren't the slightest bit concerned, either with pedagogical skills, or with staying current in their fields of "expertise."

College students learn no useful skills. The only currency of any value in colleges is regurgitating a professor's thoughts -- no matter how uninformed or irrelevant -- to get a good grade on a test. Not a very useful skill, unless you intend to stay in academe.

Graduates are educated in their profession by their first employer.

So, other than great parties, what's the use of college?

Heidi K. | 11:38 a.m. April 21, 2009

An open source educational environment will fail us in the long run. First, it lacks teaching discipline. In the working world, sitting through long presentations and meetings is an habitual practice that we all must suffer through--and most of us learned our patience by attending long lectures in school. Also, the interaction between students in a classroom is an important way to learn how to apply the information written on the page/screen. If learning shifts to an independent theatre students will lack discipline, important personal interactions that spark creativity, and lose the high educational standards that keep us competitive in this global marketplace.

Linus | 11:40 a.m. April 21, 2009

It is so easy to spot the comments made by "establishment" defenders. "I paid an arm and a leg to jump through the diploma hoops, so everyone should have to do the same."

As a former public school teacher, I can assure you that a degree or a certificate does not a teacher make! The ability to teach is a gift, and is often possessed by graduates of the school of hard knocks. I was excited when the legislature considered opening opportunities to teach to those with practical experience, certified or not. I was disappointed when nothing came of it.

I say "three cheers for Wiley!" Keep thinking, Sir, because (obviously) that's what you're good at.

To LightandLiberty | 11:41 a.m. April 21, 2009

Your discussion of the need for a classroom with a teacher confuses form with substance. Learning is dependent on the student far more than the teacher. Some face-to-face teaching is important, and at grade school ages, is really necessary. But, the subject matter determines what context works best. Playing basketball as a team can, of course, only be learned by playing as a team. Scientific experiments require the right equipment. But, learing does not require someone at the front of a lecture hall or classroom to be the source of information in many subjects. Learning requires a student who is actively engaged and seeking answers to questions.

Assuming that self-directed learning does not require work is based on a false assumption. Some people may lack the self-discipline to really get an education, but this is true whether they are in a classroom or on their own.

Good students | 11:51 a.m. April 21, 2009

Students interested in learning material will succeed just as much if not more at a self-paced program with free information such as is described as they would in a classroom setting. Disinterested students can skate by in either setting without really learning the material.

I wish schools were already like this. I've learned more from online lectures and my own reading of books than I ever learned from the archaic process of listening to a professor pontificate and then regurgitating their opinions in a paper for the purpose of getting a good grade.

The bigger picture | 11:55 a.m. April 21, 2009

Most of these comments have a very valid point. Though, something I am seeing in most of these posts is consideration of only one type of learner or subject matter. Some people benefit more from constant interaction between an in-the-flesh teacher (I am one of those). Some people can learn just fine on their own through an Internet classes. However, it does take an organized, self-motivated person to learn information and skills like that. There are also some subjects/skills that cannot be learned effectively through such impersonal mediums as the Internet. Teaching, for instance, requires: observation by an expert teacher to develop public speaking skills; time in front of real students that care more about lunch time than what you have to say so that one can get used to that kind of environment; time to learn and develop classroom management techniques as well as developing the guts to effectively administer discipline with 30 defiant teenagers. Internet classes could never replace this kind of specialized instruction. However, Internet classes do have their place in knowledge-based (as opposed to skill-based) disciplines.

Jane Q. Public | 11:57 a.m. April 21, 2009

Are you sure that they are not telling the truth about these economic situations, and that it is not YOUR political biases that are saying they must be wrong?

Because to me, that sounds like the more reasonable and likely scenario.

Knowwhat | 12:00 p.m. April 21, 2009

Thinking about many professors that I listened to would have been just as valuable a listening online. I found many professors to be boring, monotonous and full of themselves, not interested in helping students learn but just diseminating their own expert information. My son attending a university now sees this same pattern. He went to discuss a part of a lecture with the professor and was treated like a fool and the professor acted like he was wasting his time. This is why they will become obsolete. I'll bet most of you can only name one or two professors that had any impact on your education.

Adult education | 1:49 p.m. April 21, 2009

The last couple of years I'm been stuck at home with a medical disability and been using the time to catch up on all manner of courses from chemistry, history, mathematics and geology. I have a 4-year honors degree from a reputable university, and can state without hesitation that the best of those online video courses exceeded by far in content and presentation much of what I received in school.

I'm not sure about how testing is coming along but if that problem is solved traditional education may well be on the way out.

Federico | 2:08 p.m. April 21, 2009

Does anyoneknow the URL of the "What if" video in Youtube Wiley refers to? I've spent 30 minutes searching for it and can't find it.

WC | 2:09 p.m. April 21, 2009

Wiley makes a bold statemtn but perhaps false. I agree with him that virtual information is fast becoming commonplace in educational instutitons. However to call universities obsolete is to neglect the fact that university isn't just the classroom. Surely you are there primarily for an education but also for an experience. People mee their best friend, wife, husband etc at university and dooming this social experience is a bit of a stretch. Additionally perhspa some low-middle level classes can be digitized but what about upper level classes where hands-on research is necessary in order to carry out your dissertation or 4th year thesis? I don't believe the technology is there as yet to truly replace the human presence and its benefits. Would we want a doctor to operate on us based on a degree he took online in which he only saw some pictures of the procedure? Or would we want one who has been mentored by a qualified surgeon and has personally assisted or performed one in their course of study?

Murat O. | 2:14 p.m. April 21, 2009

Universities today are not just about teachable information but capitalizable knowledge. Universities will never be irrelevant, especially for the second part, as long as the tie between academy and industry stay strong. Can anyone tell me a cheaper way of producing science and technology for the private industry or the governmental agencies (like Dept of Defense)? Dont take me wrong, I am (partially) against entrepreneurial university and I am aggrieved about quality professors running after grants instead of teaching. Yet, there seems to be nothing standing against the capita-l-iberalism. Can open content rebel? Who knows! But, I am little bit skeptical because the social forces posed by capita-l-iberalism still say no gain no pain.

GRad Student | 3:16 p.m. April 21, 2009

Response to Know-what ... Not all professors are like the ones you had ... and it only takes ONE caring person to help another person make positive changes in their own life ... Education is about being able to SEE that you have more choices than those who weren't able to attend college. That way you are more able to make the choice that' s right for you.

Wiley, Wiley, Wiley | 3:18 p.m. April 21, 2009

Whatever good points Wiley has to make are clouded by a typical practice in academia: Making a controversial statement to gain recognition. Unfortunately, Wiley will be subject of conversations, not education reform.

Like-minded Professor | 3:36 p.m. April 21, 2009

Universities cannot presume to compete with Google and Wikipedia - e.g. examining students for readily-avilable knowledge truly is out-dated.

Instead, they must focus on optimizing the benefits of propinquity: on fostering learning activities that can improve the mind (e.g. critical thinking) that often are better accomplished where other as-interested parties are gathered together in close geographical proximity.

Also, expert information processing theory suggests that the high-performance knowledge upon which expertise depends, is most often achieved in a close-coaching setting - - again, propinquity. (This is why in most crafts,e.g. medicine, sports, trades, etc., effective substitutes for apprenticeship with masters are difficult to effect.)

So let's assess these ideas in a sufficiently-broad context.

University change? Yes. University obsolescence . . . . doubtful.

One | 4:34 p.m. April 21, 2009

At the rate the world is going high tech, I'm not so sure univ's will be around in 10 years. My concern is more about accuracy and truth. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the minds of those who don't research and check their sources; and ask themselves why. And calculators did make children stupid...without a computerized cash register, many can't even count change.

Henry Drummond | 4:37 p.m. April 21, 2009

I fear our evangelists friend is a bit behind the time. Lectures and all kinds of materials have been available for years online. There are free books and free online classes. In fact the idea of "distance education" is older than he is. It really has little to do with why graduates from the better universities are in such high demand.

I see little sense in seeking out a third rate educational experience from these online courses when you have so many second rate institutions like BYU available to you.

Doug | 4:43 p.m. April 21, 2009

As a teacher of online courses, I see that some students thrive because the can teach themselves. Other (non-autodidacts), drop like flies and learn nothing. I can envision a world where education is relegated to those of have the "online learning" gene, and they will thrive. Those who lack the DNA, well, someone has to serve lunch at the fast food diner. That guy handing you a burger and fries might have been Alexander the Great, but alas, there was no Aristotle. All my online friends are Turing Machines. Your, too.

RB | 5:29 p.m. April 21, 2009

Great article and I couldn't agree with the Prof. more.

30 years ago, I went to the University of Utah and Weber State COLLEGE. We didn't have computers, cell phones, digital cameras, lightweight composite materials or the internet back then...they hadn't been invented!

I've spent the last 25 years working for Boeing designing and building the most technologically advanced aircraft in the world.

Myself, and those Doctors giving you drugs and cutting you open, have had to learn and re-learn as the technologies have changed. Not a minute of it has been in a college class room, or by a formal Educator or formal instructor.

Times and Information and the methods of transfering that information are constantly changing at lightning speed.

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - whatever the source.

Armen Alvarez | 6:38 p.m. April 21, 2009

I truly know that the money talks!!! The online campus is more unexpensive and the difficult level and the credebility is something that universities as WGU can guaranteed! I am believe in this article! We don't need to wait until 2020 is happening now!

College Drop-outs | 7:12 p.m. April 21, 2009

It's nothing more than a piece of paper, like a receipt from the candy store.

I read recently that 70% of the jobs in the next 20 years will be related to technologies that don't even exist today.

The biggest movers and shakers in the world were not government funded, University Reasearchers, but a bunch of College drop-outs.

They, and they alone have changed the world the most in the last 20 years.
Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Ralph Lauren, Richard Branson...all college loosers.

How and Why? Because Academia was to big, too proud, too smart and too set in their paradigms to see the world differently, and then adapt.
They did.

Bye-Bye dinosaurs.
Social, Economic Darwinism.
Only the strong survive.

Name Entered | 7:22 p.m. April 21, 2009

A University, whether actual or virtual, exposes students to a wide range of ideas. I constantly reassure my students that the Earth is now beginning to enter a cooling off period which should end by 2020.

To: College Drop-outs | 9:14 p.m. April 21, 2009

The fact that the truly gifted have been drop-outs of the traditional system is nothing new. But what you're not accounting for are the tens of thousands of people involved in realizing the dream these figures set in motion who all depended on the skills and knowledge obtained from their college experience. Sure, computers are revolutionary, but how far would they have gone had the internet not been developed into a feasible tool by MIT grads? And how great would the internet have been for business had another university researcher not developed encryption? Your argument is hardly evidence for the downfall of the university system.

re: RB | 9:19 p.m. April 21, 2009

How is one to get caught up with the state of technology in the first place without education? I think there's a reason Boeing isn't interested in hiring a high-school kid who tinkers on his own with the intention of on the job training for him. Yes, learning is a lifetime endeavor--all the universities have ever claimed to do is provide a launching point. A university graduate (from a reputable institution) will at least have some basic knowledge of the area and, more importantly, the ability to learn. Let's face it, learning is a skill that must be cultivated through practice. Without a challenging proving-ground one is unlikely to reach their full potential.

re: By 2020? | 9:29 p.m. April 21, 2009

Wow, you're pretty good at spouting off stereotypes of professors. Many professors care very much. And let me let you in on a little secret: most professors (and I know a lot of them first-hand, as I'm a PhD candidate) work very long weeks. Just because there is only, as you put it 6 hours of instruction time, most are putting in 60-80 hours of work toward their profession. Lush offices? Hardly, professors' offices are no different than in the business world, just not as cushy. The only professors getting anything close to the kind of treatment you are describing are in fields such as business, and that only because the job must be close to competitive to the private business sector to attract good candidates.

Mark | 9:53 p.m. April 21, 2009

Anyone who thinks college professors only work 6 hours a week probably think Steve Young only worked 3.5 hours a week too!

One question | 9:56 p.m. April 21, 2009

Has anyone thought about what will take the place of the research that universities provide? A university doesn't just teach, it discovers new knowledge as well. How will that be replaced?

marilyn | 9:58 p.m. April 21, 2009

I wanted to watch the U-tube video mentioned in the article. Has anyone found it? I had a college professor who said the Internet was a passing fad, when I predicted that it would dramatically change the way education is delivered. It seems education is being delivered more often over the Net and not just for Internet based classes. I love being able to email my assignments to my instructor and become impatient when a teacher wants a hard copy.

Ridgerunner | 10:09 p.m. April 21, 2009

Bill Gates anyone? Never graduated from college and it is probably a good thing he didn't. Why? conventional wisdom (thinking) was not available in any university in the field he invented! I used to work for a pharmaceutical company and at least in my industry, we did our own research, no university has ever invented a new medicine! That is not to say universities are totally irrelavent, I am just saying they are not the end all, be all that some people believe. Most (not all) technological inventions have come from private industry, not universities.

Lacking the Interpersonal | 6:32 a.m. April 22, 2009

As a college professor I find some of these ideas very exciting. Considering the state of our K-12 education and the violence in the schools, part of this plan provides some better options for true education of the individual rather than teaching to the middle of the classroom. However, this idea if taken as an all-or-nothing direction has a serious lack of interpersonal learning. Recent generations who have grown up in this technology-based world have fewer interpersonal communications skills. I fear for these generations and their inability to speak up and out, to interact with others, to engage in meaningful and thoughtful dialogue with others. Where will they develop their true voice? Blogging, texting, and emailing is not the same as speaking your thoughts in front of others. How will they learn the necessary skills to talk, listen, and consider what they are hearing and then instantly engage in personal human interactions that exchange differing ideas? Recently college campuses in the USA have been moving away from the formal lecture mode, learning more methods of blended teaching methods (blending digital with interpersonal models). Blending is better than a full discard.

Eugen | 6:34 a.m. April 22, 2009

Wiley is a saint in that he delivers a prophecy to all the children that otherwise would be blocked from higher education, now thay can too. This will revolutionize education, the combined knowledge and output will increase significantly on a global scale.

Mary Ellen | 7:33 a.m. April 22, 2009

I taught management courses online for 8 years through a University. In the beginning, I felt good about it. I came up with relevant lectures, links to more information on the web and tried to have provocative questions to encourage more discussion. I stopped teaching two years ago when the university mandated a cookie cutter curriculum. The goal seemed to be more about taking students money (many which weren't adequately prepared for college) than actually promoting learning. Long distance learning only works when the students have self-discipline. I believe we are wrong as a culture to place stigmas on people who don't graduate from college. College isn't for everybody and this influx of insufficiently prepared students is "dumbing" our higher education. More technical opportunities need to be made available. That being said, I still strongly believe in using technology to enhance life-long learning.

re: 2020 | 7:48 a.m. April 22, 2009

You clearly don't appreciate education one bit. If you think college is for parties, you went for the wrong reasons.
Universities will never go out of style. Kids learn to become adults there. Watch how freshmen act compared to seniors and you notice a huge change.

Many people like me hate the constant flooding of technology that is needed to survive in school. I have my laptop and cell phone (which I rarely use because I hate lugging it around everywhere). This guy can leave BYU and "teach" from his home for all I care, but people like me love learning and being at a university and getting the spirit of education all around. You DO NOT get that sitting at a computer at a park. There are no social gatherings, dances, clubs, groups, meeting people on the way to class, etc.

I'm in the middle of my second degree of three, and I WILL NOT do a lame online university....pathetic!

Tim Farnham | 8:30 a.m. April 22, 2009

Clayton Christensen in Innovators Dilemma states that it takes a long time before new technologies are significantly disruptive to companies who typically have a vested interested in not changing at all (especially true in higher education with its tenure, accreditation and culture). We tend to overestimate the impact of technology in the short term while underestimating it in the long term. Christensen says it is rational for incumbent companies to ignore disruptive innovations since they compare so badly with existing technologies or products, and the deceptively small market available for innovation is typically tiny at first. Examples are the Apple and IBM desktop PCs displacing the darlings of Wall Street mini-computer manufacturers Wang, Prime, Digital Equipment, Harris all out of business in only a few years.

Four things are needed to radically transform education this time around:
1. Have recognized outcome assessments for certification/accreditation (i.e., CPA)
2. High-speed Internet (150+ Mbps to the desktop) for high-resolution virtual reality and content at a reasonable price (available in less than 5 years)
3. High-performance workstations for under $2,000 (available within next two years)
4. Incentives for students / parents to use innovative access.

Joshua David | 9:11 a.m. April 22, 2009

In an ideal society. the amount of progress and improvement, a source of knowledge provides to as many people as possible sould get complete and instatanious edification. And if the system we have in place to measure and reward this affect that knowledge and innovation has upon our society, is hindering the application of such virtues. Then that system must be revised and improved. This is called reform....or progress?...or liberal?

Nathan Owens | 9:19 a.m. April 22, 2009

Today's universities may have an organization that maintains their prestige, but one is mistaken if they believe they can fully understand the more advanced material without direction. People could potentially understand the basics, general education courses, even possibly an associates degree's worth on their own. Understanding any field sufficiently to be able to contribute to it, is something that takes a more complete education. A more complete education is something I believe everyone should strive for. If you do not understand material well enough to recognize how conclusions were reached, you can not be critical enough to be anything other than blind believers. Blind believers are a threat to society.

Jud | 9:41 a.m. April 22, 2009

No amount of high-tech boffola will ever replace a dedicated teacher in a room with a group of students. The synergies and insights thus produced are irreplaceable. Mr. Wiley is wrong.

Tyler | 10:15 a.m. April 22, 2009

I'm surprised by the lack of distinction between content and mode of education apparent in this debate. As a former student of Univ of Phoenix and current BYU senior, I can tell you that the content is similar between institutions; there's nothing unique or exclusive about the texts and presentation materials available.
What is different is the mode of conveying those facts. I found that my non-trad school experience complete inadequate in helping me develop tools for critical thinking even though the content was the same.
I most value the opportunities to have disciplined scholars criticize my work, push me to think on new levels and make connections between ideas. That's something that an iPod can't do.

carrie | 10:40 a.m. April 22, 2009

wise up or get left in the dust.

Common Sense | 11:04 a.m. April 22, 2009

Maybe it is time for education to actually prepare students with skills needed in the real world. Here is a small example clear down to the elementary level. My 5th grade daughter did a report. She worked on it at school and wanted to finish it at home. We bought a little flash drive for her be able to save her work. We have Microsoft Word as does 90% of the business world. But of course the schools have MAC's so the documents don't save and work in Word. These are the people in charge of educating our children? Education is broken from the elementary level to the university level. That is why the universities are becoming irrelevant. I don't see anything wrong with a broad educational experience. I don't think universities should be just an on the job training site. Please just give our students a real education including some education they can use in the real world.

Zionear | 11:36 a.m. April 22, 2009

Finally They are starting to come around.
I wrote a paper about this topic Last spring, and sent it to the BYU-I student council.
He is right if universities don't change they will be gone, but if the offer valuable learning experiences that can' t be had anywhere else then they will still be around.

There is no reason why Universities can not reach out around the world and have students all over the globe. The technology is there.

Zionear | 11:37 a.m. April 22, 2009

Youtube and Stickam are doing more for education then many university's nows days.

Anonymous | 11:43 a.m. April 22, 2009

This article seems to miss a number of issues. First it calls colleges 'generic' but taking a nationally available online lecture is much more 'generic'. On top of that, if these lectures are available for free, there will be no incentive to make lectures, leading to a select few available lecturers. And, though I agree that most students would pick the structureless curriculum available online, I cannot imagine employers preferring a degree (or lack there of) from a distance learning center where there is no way to ensure mastery of any subject, over a degree from a university. And finally, as an alum from a top tier university, I can honestly say that the two greatest things about such a university are the other students (from which I did most of my learning) and the equipment/resources available there. Neither of those will be available to the distance learners. I certainly think that online curriculum (like that from MIT) is great for brushing up or bolstering your education, but it will not replace the education you get on the MIT campus.

themanbat | 11:46 a.m. April 22, 2009

Sure sit down institutions will be obsolete by the year 2020. Just like we had interplanetary airliners and all drove flying cars by the year 2000. This guy is writing science fiction. There will always be a market for an educational environment where people come together to work towards a common goal. I'm not saying study at home programs won't rise, but they won't replace. That's like saying home exercise DVD's are going to replace Gyms and Health Clubs. Some people can be successful with the home program, but most people do much better when they gather at an institution and don't have to rely purely on self motivation.

weberly | 11:50 a.m. April 22, 2009

I find the idea of online courses a good one but not for some professions. I do believe that having a surgeon working on me without the proper training would not only be dangerous but, also well past asinine. I think that there is a place for this but,if your job might just determine whether or not someone lives .....then you might just need to be in a class room. It is just as easy to get someone to do your work as it is to do it your self. I don't want a life I care about to depend on the "D.r's" ability to google.

SCOTT_MICH | 2:03 p.m. April 22, 2009

Interesting but I think he misses a crucial point. The ONLINE experience highlights a problem that has always been there identity fraud and degree credentials. It is accentuated with the attitude "Now anyone can get a degree in their spare time."
As the market is flooded with subpar education, however, how will I know if job candidates are qualified for the position? How will I know if this individual even took the online classes? These problems will come up more and more as more people earn "degrees" that aren't "audited."
Accreditation is the system that must grow to meet these demands. Education is not just about getting knowledge (which is what the author seems to suggest). For a professional job you should have to prove you have that knowledge. Accreditation is not something that can be dismissed as irrelavant.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.