In this article from The Economist, some key concerns about the business of education are raised. Given the increasing use of massive open online courses, some have begun speculating on MOOC income streams and how they could affect the business of traditional universities.
Two main concerns intrigued me:
1) The possibility of advertising within education is raised, as a means to have degrees sponsored for people. One commentator says: "Ads propelled radio and TV, why not education? There is a lot of misplaced snobbery in education about advertising." At first thought, brands being infused within lectures sounds disastrous. But on second thought, can this be avoided if we want to provide free education that is not backed by Governments? Also, are there no brands in our current curriculum, such as inventors, popular designs and particular texts?
2) Several companies seem to have offered longer-term pay offs to students by betting on their learning systems now. One way is through direct job recruitment. Another way is through the offering of credit as a reward upon completion. The second option makes more sense to me than the first. Yet, in the background of both options is the risk that options are tailored by private actors with private interests. Should this not be backed by a public institution, such as the Ministry of Education, to ensure that learning is still imparted in as fair, global and pluralistic way it should?
In general, though the article offers excellent ways of thinking about the future business of education, the role of public learning interests is absent in the article. It only seems humane to regard education - learning, thinking, pondering - as a public good and service. If not, it is likely that massive numbers of youth will learn only what some rather than all interests want them to learn.
-- Update, 23rd July 2013:
Apart from needing government investment, it also seems like our society should be open to involving paid work within curricular programs. That is, embed an employment aspect into schooling.
Two main concerns intrigued me:
1) The possibility of advertising within education is raised, as a means to have degrees sponsored for people. One commentator says: "Ads propelled radio and TV, why not education? There is a lot of misplaced snobbery in education about advertising." At first thought, brands being infused within lectures sounds disastrous. But on second thought, can this be avoided if we want to provide free education that is not backed by Governments? Also, are there no brands in our current curriculum, such as inventors, popular designs and particular texts?
2) Several companies seem to have offered longer-term pay offs to students by betting on their learning systems now. One way is through direct job recruitment. Another way is through the offering of credit as a reward upon completion. The second option makes more sense to me than the first. Yet, in the background of both options is the risk that options are tailored by private actors with private interests. Should this not be backed by a public institution, such as the Ministry of Education, to ensure that learning is still imparted in as fair, global and pluralistic way it should?
In general, though the article offers excellent ways of thinking about the future business of education, the role of public learning interests is absent in the article. It only seems humane to regard education - learning, thinking, pondering - as a public good and service. If not, it is likely that massive numbers of youth will learn only what some rather than all interests want them to learn.
-- Update, 23rd July 2013:
Apart from needing government investment, it also seems like our society should be open to involving paid work within curricular programs. That is, embed an employment aspect into schooling.
Comments
Post a Comment