Clayton Christensen and Henry Eyring explain why higher education is in crisis and how it needs to change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • UGradBYUfan Snowflake, AZ
    June 18, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    DN Subscriber: What are "politically correct 'fluff' classes"?

  • cval Hyde Park, UT
    May 16, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    My2Cents said: I'm here to say these guys are wrong and must be MBA bean counters. While it maximize profit it demeans higher education. On line college classes should not be given more credit than a supplement to high school level learning.

    I can understand teachers and colleges loving this plan, it minimizes their involvement but it is not college level learning.(end quote)

    I have taught online for a major state university for several years. It does not minimize my involvement at all... in fact, it means I am communicating with my students every day, not just on class days. We have a regular meeting time online, just as if we were attending in a classroom.

    Online classes can be done well,and they can be done poorly. When done poorly, they are as bad as some suggest. When done well, they are really excellent.

    A hint: Traditional colleges that care about quality tend to do a better job than the online only schools who often truly are in it for a quick buck.

    Check out the online offerings at our state colleges and universities in Utah. For the most part, they are very good.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 16, 2011 2:32 p.m.

    The real issue here is not about higher education adapting to computer-based and online learning. No institution of higher education I know about is NOT adopting such technologies.

    In my opinion, the real issues are two:

    How do institutions of higher education assess, measure, and certify student learning and performance in such a way as to make the diplomas they issue valid. Online technologies do nothing to improve this key value-adding service provided by higher education. If you don't care about such things, print out your own little diploma on a printer and move on.

    Online, self-study, degrees have been around for decades, but they are typically from "diploma-mills" - profit-making businesses that produce as many "graduates" as they can in order to make as much money as possible. Too much emphasis on these technologies can turn most of higher education into "diploma mills".

    Second, higher education should be about innovation and adding to the knowledge we have. That requires research, which in most disciplines requires expensive apparatus, methodology, and disciplined oversight by recognized and credentialed experts (usually PhDs) in a field. Online education cannot provide that collegial research experience very well.

  • Mike Rose Provo, UT
    May 16, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    Given these factored effects how do we expect interest groups to respond to rapidly growing online education.

    -Productivity will likely be equivalent accomplished with less preparatory learning while shifting to more continuous independent learning.

    -Talent signal's to employers will become equivalent.

    -Face to face social networking may go down, but may be replaced by online networking.(@Independent 70% of jobs never get posted to job boards but are filled by referrals by insiders however for the most part avoids the troubles of nepotism)

    -Professional societies secretly oppose decreased education costs, as it increases competition and reduces their pay.

    -Current mediocre professors, and administrators don't want to lose their jobs.

    -Politicians don't want college people having time during prime working hours or 8am 5pm when 70% of people work. Online education would allow people to try to work and get degrees at the same time, thus increasing the unemployment rate.

    -Research funding from tuition may be imperiled and different funding models need to be created.

    -Profitable college sports teams may go minor league pro with unprofitable teams eliminated as colleges consolidate and merge as online class sizes greatly increase but in person student populations drop.

  • Mike Rose Provo, UT
    May 16, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    Doctors, lawyers and others enjoy lucrative cartels controlling who can do what, Universities are used as the price of admission to their cartel. And what a price it is with doctors averaging $200,000 of debt and 8 years of living without wages. I would expect the price of health care to drop considerably with numbers of doctors increasing rapidly if laws governing admission to their club were changed to a 2-3 day test of competence instead of a $200,000 price and 8 years of wage free waiting.

    Universities provide employment, and like unions, professors seek termination protection, and like unions greatly inflate their wages with tenure.

    Students mostly are not employed, but are not counted among the unemployed nor do they collect unemployment benefits. In country of 300 million but only 140 million jobs education regulates the entry age just as taxlaws and Social Security regulates the exit.

    Research does happen but consists of only 10% of all HigherEds's annual USA expenditures of $400 billion.

    Sports and other activities at college seem to serve a fundraising, marketing, and recruitment function mostly done by unpaid student labor. With coach's making millions, players should aswell.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    May 16, 2011 1:15 p.m.

    "Social networks formed at universities allow graduates place quickly with higher pay at companies their associates work at."

    For the handful of well-connected rich kids, yes, this is true. The rest of us have to get by on ability, in spite of the social networks.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    May 16, 2011 12:08 p.m.

    Eyring's book in 2009 on how to make the most of the college experience was very helpful and instructive-------yet now a book questioning the future of higher education?????? How things change in just a few years! I guess anybody who has worshiped the university environment (of whom I am one) is going to be humbled by this industry crashing down in humiliation. I respect educators and politicians who have lived in the "real world" and worked in a variety of jobs and locations. They say the marketplace itself rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior--------we just need more leaders who have worked in the marketplace instead of spewing out theory. White collar world is like the pharisees and sadducees in that they never lift a finger to work, they just become expert on telling others how to do the heavy work.

  • Mike Rose Provo, UT
    May 16, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    The problem with focusing on whats learned is that knowledge has appreciating/depreciating asset duality where some knowledge is retained and remains useful throughout ones life while most knowledge is quickly forgotten or becomes obsolete leading to quick depreciation of ones investment in knowledge acquisition. This must lead to treating knowledge as a consumable expenses, continuously made and used rather than a durable capital investment. Therefore using debt without recourse to default in order to fund education is too risky given the enormous variation in pay after graduation. It's too great a gamble.

    Other factors that partially explain the earning disparity between College and High School graduates include:

    -College completion signals to employers that graduates have the talent, motivation, and personality needed to accomplish the tasks required, training occurs on the job with previously received education having little relevance.

    -Social networks formed at universities allow graduates place quickly with higher pay at companies their associates work at.

    -Students attend to gain degrees that give access to regulated labor markets segregated either by law or by corporate hiring practices. Professions which have these laws and practices see greatly inflated earnings ranging around up to several hundred $billion/year.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    May 16, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    I think the biggest thing that would improve education, regardless of whether the learning takes place online or in a traditional classroom, is for students to take responsibility for learning the material. My experience in college included long hours of studying and reading, by myself, in a quiet spot in the library. I would walk confidently into a test, passing by the hordes of frantic people who had been spending the last hour sitting together, comparing each other's notes, relying on a handful of smart people to tell them all of the answers. I consistently scored higher on exams that these people. There is no need for study groups and note comparisons when you attend all the lectures and read all of the text books by yourself, like you're supposed to. "Group learning" robs the smart kids of their time and the slow kids of the experience of learning things for themselves, so that at best, they only learn something long enough to remember it for an exam. It doesn't matter how good or bad your teachers are. It doesn't matter how nice or dilapidated the facilities are. All that matters is you. Do your homework!

  • jans Pickerington, OH
    May 16, 2011 10:29 a.m.

    I've got a BA degree through traditional university education and a BS degree through an online university program formulated for working professionals (both are accredited programs). There have been benefits and downsides to both methods, but from my perspective, I agree with what Eyring and Christensen are proposing: the colleges and universities that utilize a mix of the old methods and new technologies will be better served in the future and meet more needs of current and potential students.

    There is a need for all kinds of education and we need a more highly educated populous. Even those students who seek technical school certifications and degrees will benefit from a broader range of courses to choose from, especially if they can fit in jobs and family at the same time. It is past time to innovate.

  • UGradBYUfan Snowflake, AZ
    May 15, 2011 11:24 p.m.

    I agree with Bugoff when he said that education is essential but inefficient. Whenever we try to apply the business model to education, TRUE education suffers. When I hear Higher Education complain that "The problems [with higher education] start with poorly prepared average HS students", I can't help but remember when President Bush was going to "save" education by making schools more accountable. "No Child Left Behind" was going to guarantee students would be better prepared. What it did was to lower the bar because everyone was going to have to make it, because no one could be left behind. Everyone wants to blame education, but when unrealistic standards are imposed on a struggling system, without further increasing resources (we conservatives call them unfunded mandates when discussing Obamacare), the system is bound for failure.

    Educational reform using a business model will never work! Be innovative! Look to the top educational systems in the world for a model! Don't look to a bunch of old boys that manufacture widgets for a model to prepare the future leaders of America! People are not widgets! Education is expensive, not efficient, but it is ESSENTIAL!

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 15, 2011 10:45 p.m.

    Excellent points, all of them in the story and from the prior comments.

    However, we must remember that not everyone should be forced into a college education.

    And, we need to demand that our K-12 schools actually teach students what they should be learning there, not social promotion at the lowest possible level. Too much college effort is devoted to remedial education to make up for our failing K-12 schools. Give incoming students tests, and if they pass, the can sign up for college classes, if not, so sorry--- come back when you are ready.

    And, cut the politically correct "fluff" courses that waste resources and student time, or allow students to get an "education": that is absolutely worthless- such as feminist studies, etc.

  • JF Provo, UT
    May 15, 2011 9:25 p.m.

    No question that tuition increases at many universities is out of hand. No question that lecture only is a POOR method of instruction. And no question that informational content can be delivered reasonably well with technology, though my experience (purely anecdotal) is that students rare read on-line materials well. Google and Wikipedia seem to be their models for what is available on-line; they expect to be spoon fed whatever information I want them to learn.

    But universities are not about getting jobs, though one hopes they will also help students do that. They are about educating: teaching people to think, to understand math, science, and their culture, tradition, and political systems. If universities were to concentrate more on those (which are not merely matters of information--history is NOT static), they would probably also provide more of the skills needed to succeed in work.

    As I said, the merely informational aspects can be conveyed on-line (if you can figure out how to get students to really use that information), but the thinking--comparing, contrasting, critiquing--occurs best in face-to-face group discussions. In other words, it happens best in a traditional, non-lecture classroom.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    May 15, 2011 8:36 p.m.

    I actually agree with several points Bugoff stated. The BIGGEST problem in higher education is that today's students are not prepared for college.

    I personally have worked with very small classes of students of remedial mathematics, teaching college students what they could have learned in the 8th grade, had math been a priority. Universities are spending way too much time and money trying to "recapture" these students, who really have no business being in college. Most of them never graduate from college, but the college loses lots of money trying to save them.

    I'm totally open to more online classes. However, I think this would more or less be treating the symptoms rather than addressing the problem.

  • Bugoff Houston, TX
    May 15, 2011 8:15 p.m.

    One more thought. In my field, half of the Doctorates are employed by industry which pays twice as much as academia.

    Further, the majority of new doctorates can not work in the US as they lack visas. Those are two reasons why professor salaries tend to climb at least at schools that demand publications.

    The "Research Schools" are trying very hard to develop their own tier of universities. That is a bad mistake. With the internet you no longer need a world class library to do world class research in most fields. You can also collaborate electronically with virtually any other scholar. You do not have to be at the same "Research School as your other authors.

    In some fields you do need world class infrastructure.

    The future of most disciplines should not be left in the hands of a few "Research Schools".

    The biggest problems that face universities today are poorly prepared students, dated cirriculum and classes, administrative burdens from government and accreditation, costs which drive the use of more adjuncts, mega classes, and online delivery.

    The biggest problem is that America is now a service economy that demands educated/highly skilled workers. Education is essential but inefficient.

  • Bugoff Houston, TX
    May 15, 2011 7:42 p.m.

    The newest texts are creating online teaching materials that will improve online delivery. However, it is a lot easier to cheat online and far harder to control the cheating.

    The biggest complaint you hear from the students in general about online classes is that they have to primarily teach themselves. That approach only works for a percentage of the motivated and well prepared students.

    It does not work well with students who want a ticket punch. It is not a good learning model for the majority of students who are primarily concerned with how little effort they can put in and still get the grade they want.

    Many students do form groups within the online classes and meet on their own. Many are "lone rangers" for various reasons. Group projects can be very problematic in an online setting with uneven results.

    Lecture is highly inefficient and reduced to a talking head in an online setting.

    Learning is a 2 way interactive street where most of the learning is accomplished by discussing current events in class by applying the text and theory to the current events and impacts on student lives.

    Online makes those types of communications very difficult.

  • Bugoff Houston, TX
    May 15, 2011 7:29 p.m.

    An education should help you make better decisions through the rest of your life. Or in some fields it should give you a set of skills that allow you to master the current technology of your field.

    Many of the current classes do not do that very well. Further, the recent accreditation policies are programing most of education along a cost benefit model. The first 2 years of college are a rehash of a good high school. A good JC does that better and more cost effectively than most universities.

    America ranks about 20th in level of education of it's HS grads. The American model uses the first 2 years of college to get most students up to the same level as the HS grads of the higher ranking countries.

    The problems start with poorly prepared average HS students. America herds along a larger percentage of students but many have poor basic skills.

    The current unemployment rate for people with a 4 year degree is about 5%. It is much higher (about 16%) for drop outs. The critics are wrong, it pays to get a degree.

    Higher Ed needs revamping. Online has severe limitations.

  • Bugoff Houston, TX
    May 15, 2011 7:17 p.m.

    Several Thoughts.

    1. I am currently teaching 3 online classes this semester. 2/3s of the students prefer online classes mainly because they are convenient. 1/3 of the students really dislike them and prefer face to face classes.

    2. At least 1/3 of the online students are disengaged and rarely follow instructions or read email. They rely on the chat or discussion board with other students to figure out what is due and how to do it.

    3. The type of learning is quite different. Online is similar to a slow motion CLEP test. It is very hard to deliver useable learning skills as apposed to the knowledge to pass the tests and maybe do a project.

    4. Harvard is a poor model for much of anything except Harvard.

    5. BYU-I is a teaching school with a lot of busy work. There are light years of differences between Harvard and BYU-I.

    6. Neither Harvard nor BYU-I are good models for the average state university.

    7. Much of the rising cost of education is the administrative burden imposed by various government agencies. The bureaucracy balloons while more adjuncts are hired to do the actual teaching.

  • dave31 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2011 5:15 p.m.


    "I'm here to say these guys are wrong and must be MBA bean counters. While it maximize profit it demeans higher education."

    I'm afraid the above missed the entire point of the article. It is not about "maximizing profit," it is about "reducing the obscene costs" now associated with higher education. And this without diminishing the quality of higher education.

    I'd like to also point out that the two authors are not "HBS Bean Counters." They are two of the most forward-looking scholars in higher education and in industry.

  • gb97 American Fork, UT
    May 15, 2011 4:57 p.m.

    There's high quality education and low quality education both in the classroom and online, due to differences not only in teacher quality, but in student quality, and the differences in teacher-student interaction. There are some students who have bad teachers and will succeed because they are motivated to learn for themselves and there are some students who will never succeed no matter how good their teachers are because they just don't care about learning. There are others where the teacher and teaching style will make a big difference.

    While Universities should focus on making their schools more practical and teaching networking skills and helping students gain internships in their field, having a more highly educated workforce and electorate is clearly in the national interest and the value of education cannot be solely measured in immediate job outcomes.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 15, 2011 4:47 p.m.

    Purely academic fields of study such as Mathematics, Language Arts, History, etc. are pretty static. Nouns and Verbs have not changed in centuries. The quadratic formula has not changed either. History is also static, except for recent history, which is just now being written.

    One must ask themselves why a teacher is even required for these classes. Record a short lecture demonstrating how to use the power rule when finding the first derivative in calculus and publish quality text books and you're done.

    I know of homeschool curricula that work on the "self teaching" principle. These kids score on the 80th to 90th percentile on standardized tests. Public schools are at the 50 percentile by definition.

    Why not have a university with a huge library with excellent text books, tutoring centers and a testing center. The books could be delivered electronically and when the student was ready they could take the exam. If they need help they go to the tutoring center.

    It would be different for laboratory sciences and other hands on type courses.

    I say video tape excellent professors teaching classes for one year and deliver the content electronically.

  • UGradBYUfan Snowflake, AZ
    May 15, 2011 4:22 p.m.

    Whoever says students are not taking risks when they take out loans has not taken out any student loans. Sorry, but student loans are worse than any other loan, because you can't declare bankruptcy and get rid of them.

    The idea of paying on your education as you go is good in some fields, but many, such as in the cellular biology or genetics, are so dynamic and ever changing, that they don't accept credits unless they are within 5 years or less.

    What these authors are talking about is making education more accessible. Making education more responsive to the needs of students. The authors are not suggesting that online classes are the only way. Professor Christensen uses a hybrid format in his class. I teach hybrid (live/internet) classes for a college and I have found that they increase interaction between the educator and the student. Students get feedback immediately from the online portion of the class and I can look at the results of their homework and tests and see trends and problems and then I can answer questions in the live portion of the class without the student having to answer the question.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    May 15, 2011 3:59 p.m.

    Get real.

    If you are a hiring manager with a stack of resumes, who are you going to hire? The college graduate, or the college dropout?

    The statistics continue to show that more education = more income and less unemployment.

    With few exceptions, everybody sees that education pays.

  • Once Upon A Time Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 15, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    Gee, i dont know much of thse econmics stuff. All i know is that many of my friends who got a college dgree don't find a job. and they are not able to pay on there studnt loans. so they are losing there cars and stuff tryng to pay the loans. im glad i became a good plumber. i fix things and i get paid for fixing things. i have a house but my friends don't. they just have a degree on the wall.

  • Mike Rose Provo, UT
    May 15, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    Before reforming this system we need to understand all the economic effects and the interest groups that have formed around those effects.

    The effect that most people focus on students learning its effect on their careers. Economists show chart that colleges graduates with a bachelors make an average $15,000 more than people with high school diploma's, This does not explain why they make more only that do. Also it hides variation among the various professions, as well as variation in pay within each profession. For example authors who have sold books only average about $40,000/year. This excludes those who have completed books but not found a buyer. Also Celebrity authors like JKRowling inflate the average making the profession much more appealing whereas the bottom 50 percentile struggle to make a living.

    Almost all college students don't understand this variation among and within each profession. Usually they only see the averages.

    Colleges like to claim they're responsible for graduates careers and solicit donations and recruit new students with this data. There may be some contribution towards graduates career productivity due to what they learned while at college, but it's not a full explanation.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 15, 2011 11:53 a.m.

    Higher education does need to change to match our changing society. We have so many resources that can be used as tools to reach the electronic generation. We need to do a better job of it.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    May 15, 2011 11:47 a.m.

    Anybody who is struggling over the effectiveness of online learning needs to look at Khanacademy as a case study.

    The online lecture strategy changes the entire dynamic of group learning. By creating a lecture series that can be accessed online and delivered at the pace of the student, each student can optimize their performance in the classroom. This approach does take away from the social learning enviroment, but has in some acute cases (Khanacademy) been a major facilitator for when students do interact. The real challenge is find out how to effectively use this technology, while still creating time for students to get together in person, to collaborate on their learning, through projects or discussion. Furthermore, it opens new channels and possibilities for students to colloborate on global scale.

    I do admit however that if executed poorly, this could just be a poor crutch to reducing the cost of running schools and universities. Application is the key.

  • twoartistic Draper, UT
    May 15, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    One of the reasons education has become so expensive is that we are separating the risk, from the risk takers.

    What financial risk does the University have if a student does not finish? They already have their funds. What financial risk does the student have if they drop out? Sure they may pay the loan back... someday, but many don't.

    Did anyone pay attention to the sub prime lending debacle? When you separate risk from risk takers, you artificially inflate the product. Lots of people will risk when they have little to loose and a system eager to hand out more and more easy money.

    We will be much further ahead once students have to pay for there education as they go, just like I did. You value it more, you work harder and you learn real world application on the job as you study the theory in school. I say when, because as soon as this house of cards comes down, little funding will be available. Unless the Universities are too big to fail, then obama will "stimulate" the system. Heaven help us!

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    May 15, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    I taught as an Adjunct for 10 years at a small liberal arts college. All of my course materials were online: syllabus, lecture tutorials, homework problems. Students could do the homework problems in any sequence they wanted and at their own speed. In each of my classes I gave 15-20 minute mini-lectures and then spent the rest of the time working 1:1 with the students. Attendance was not required, and those who needed no help didn't regularly attend. My classes were a primitive form of online courses.

    Online courses have two big advantages: less capitol expense for the school and freedom for the students in not having to attend classes on campus. Technology is changing the educational world. Two-way video conferencing is becoming available. Email is in universal use. Unlimited cellphone minutes are common. As educators get more experience with online classes, they will use technology that will allow them to have more dialog between students and have deeper thinking in the course material. Of course, online courses aren't for everyone, but each year the incoming students are more in-tune with technology and more likely to use and appreciate online courses.

  • Florien Wineriter Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 15, 2011 11:07 a.m.

    I agree with the comment which in effect said 'easy money' has made higher education too expensive. I think there is a deep need for an in depth study of why college is so expensive and create ways for dramatically lowering the cost of a college education. It seems to me that universites have become not much more than expensive 'techical colleges' rather than institutions of the 'liberal arts'.

  • twoartistic Draper, UT
    May 15, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    I love it! "Disruptive innovation" I noticed the disruption many years ago. Once we started placing so much emphasis on a "college" education. We stopped placing value on millwrights, plumbers, carpenters and other so called "hands-on" skills and trades. There are projects right now that cannot move forward because we lack the skilled trades to do the "hands-on."

    When I was moving from a small town, the mayor came to visit me. She asked me to reconsider. She said, "Our town needs people who know how to fix and build things."

    My brother trains technicians for the largest food packaging company in the world. He says "We get degreed applicants all day long who cannot noodle out a problem if it is not spelled out in the tech manual. Our best people come out of Eastern Europe and South America, where the governments brought in technology, but no tech support. Those guys had to learn to figure things out, not look it up."

    The "disruptive innovation" is going to be, when you have so few who can fix your car, plumbing, etc. Our society is already paying dearly for this elitist thinking, and it's getting worse.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    May 15, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    I agree with this.

    Universities in the US have benefited from student loans. It has shifted the supply demand curve for them higher. They can increase their costs and all that happens is students just get bigger loans instead of dropping out. It is not that they are greedy or evil, they just aren't thinking and they have been taking the easy way out.

    Student loans haven't helped the students as much as they've helped universities.


  • Ok Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 15, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    The idea that money spent on a higher education will allow you to pay back your loans and make more money is the great scam of the day. The concept continues to grow like an uncontrollable cancer. Thousands of graduates learn that when they go out into the job market and find that there are no positions available. Professors and others involved in higher education are running the great ponzi scheme of the day. If you are a young man or woman who has just graduated from high school, consider learning a useful trade, that you enjoy doing.

  • oldcougar Orem, UT
    May 15, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    In my experience, teaching writing/composition, lecture is an ineffective teaching method. I have found that facilitating discussions based on reading and writing exercises, and one-on-one coaching are much more effective and keep students more involved/interested than lectures. The article mentioned technology as an innovative way to deliver lectures. Sounds like talking head stuff to me. I very much admire each of these men and my experience does not measure up to I will be very interested in reading their book to learn how to better help my students.

  • John Armstrong Buena Vista, VA
    May 15, 2011 6:56 a.m.

    What higher ed really needs is publication of reliable data on how good our colleges and universities are at producing actual learning as opposed to its semblance. How well did your college improve your writing, speaking, and thinking abilities? How well did it teach you of the world and its institutions? How helpful was it in helping you become a person of moral integrity? If instructional technology can improve education in these ways, then it is useful. If it distracts from these outcomes, then it is not. As a professor, I use technology as much as I can to produce good educational outcomes, but as soon as there is evidence of it becoming a distraction, I drop it.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    May 15, 2011 4:33 a.m.

    I'm here to say these guys are wrong and must be MBA bean counters. While it maximize profit it demeans higher education. On line college classes should not be given more credit than a supplement to high school level learning.

    I can understand teachers and colleges loving this plan, it minimizes their involvement but it is not college level learning. And in most colleges many classes are taught by other students, not the professors. It is my own preference that if I am going to spend my money or the government money on my education, I would prefer having qualified teachers giving the classes and lectures.

    I have had the experience of online computer courses and they suck. There is no quality, there is no interaction, the classes are a pass fail with minimal effort needed, and served only to make money for the college. Then we have to face the fact that there is a certain amount of intelligence, IQ, needed to go beyond high school because of the costs and depth of subject matter.

    This book is about maximizing profits which is destroying the quality and level of education. Production line education does not create craftsmen.

  • seer kaysville, ut
    May 15, 2011 12:53 a.m.

    I went into instructional technology many years ago for this exact purpose. I have watched many faculty members embrace this model and flourish with the added tools given to them. I have also watched others who have fallen prey to the real fear from the changing technologies and methodologies.

    I am glad to see this book coming out and will enjoy reading it. Thank you Bro Christensen and Eyring for taking the time to compile the studies and thoughts and putting them into print.