In many of my education based posts I write about how the system needs to shift its focus from task based skills to learning and thinking skills, and that for the most part, formal education needs to shift gears into 'informal' mode.
I don't think many educators in the developed world argue with the sentiment. But at the brink of a paradigm shift, the stress of uncertainty creates fear, and it becomes tempting just to leave things the way they are.
The counter attack to fear is knowledge. Here's my idea of what future universities would look like.
Universities have two main functions. They provide a level of assurance that the student has achieved an acceptable level of competency. They do this through testing, certification, and reputation. Secondly, they provide an environment where people can challenge themselves and their views, and discover new knowledge.
The first point can be replaced by testing centers. By approving national centers with detailed criteria to be met to prove a minimum level of competency, classes become unnecessary from this point. Instead, focus shifts on providing the tools and information necessary for the student to teach themself.
Providing an environment conducive to discovery and personal development is the second function. Often, the first point destroys the second. An overuse of testing has created a push for standardization of courses. This removes the flexibility of institutions and instructors to tailor their courses to the needs of their students.
If we go to university to prove our competence, all that should be important is that we can prove we are competent. How many hours we spend in a classroom and what is covered in the curriculum should be irrelevant, as long as examination and project work we can prove that we have learned the necessary skills. In the real world, competent is competent. After that, emotional skills become the determinant of success.
If universities are replaced with testing centers, what is left? What happens to the students time, and all the jobs of faculty and staff? And those shiny expensive buildings?
Well first we probably won't need so many shiny expensive buildings. That should start making things cheaper for students worldwide, and hopefully allow teachers to be paid better (which in my opinion is an often undervalued profession).
The jobs won't go away either. Students will still have administration issues. And the students will still need to learn information in order to pass courses. But they will need to initiate this learning, and in their own time. Much of the information can be accessed online. But to really benefit, students will need to do two things. Firstly share their ideas with peers, secondly get help from somebody with more experience.
The conversation between peers will change from a formal setting of "did you get what was going on in that class?" to an informal "I'm having trouble understanding X point, have you worked on that yet?" creating a drive for collaboration that builds real world skills.
Teachers would be less teachers, and more mentors that are consulted when students need help clarifying something. They can be guest lecturers for optional seminars, either of their own initiative or at student request. These jobs don't go away because students will still need people with experience to consult with and to guide them.
With less focus on standardizing every element of education, it frees up time for the student to pursue their own interests. If they do the bare minimum required to display competency, that's fine. If they take twice as long to do it as another student, that's fine too. They may be spending that time doing something else that builds character or is beneficial in some way. Or maybe not. But it doesn't matter. Competent is competent.
Or they may use that time to improve their knowledge of some subjects beyond what is required, simply because it interests them.
If left with a lighter workload and access to experienced mentors, I would likely have spent more time on studying macroeconomic policies of countries in the world and how it affects the modern political landscape and how corporate governance affects corporate financial strategies. Another business student I know might have studied more on social networking in the workplace and how to motivate people. That's fine. We're not going for the same job.
And that's the point. If we educate people the same way, they are all going to be looking for the same job and the same lifestyle, because that's what they've been trained for.
All this does is increase competition for what people think will make them happy. In the end, the only people who win this game are the lucky few who get to where they are told to go AND it suits their personality, and those that realize the game is rigged, and stop playing while they can.
I have a final point to explain the "(most)" in the title above. There are certain professions that require extensive supervised training that cannot be replaced by informal methods. Most of these are highly specialized professions, such as chemists, medical practitioners and engineers. Anything requiring extensive lab, clinical or other practical work cannot of course be replaced, but can certainly be incorporated in a similar education setting. They will just inherently have a more formalized structure out of necessity, but most people studying these degrees would expect no less.
