An Educational Extinction Event?

This is a plausible proposition. As the author argues in the article, most of the functions of universities can be covered more efficiently and more cheaply online. For example, lectures are obsolete. You only need a handful of really awesome lecturers on each topic to keep the entire world supplied with fresh and exciting undergraduate lectures. Currently, every university has its own set of lecturers, even for basic things.

It used to be that Higher Education was not something that everyone did. I think that top universities need to migrate back into that space. It could, and maybe should be that students will self-teach (using online resources) undergraduate materials that are essential to "have a degree" and only then join a University if they really want to continue their study of this subject. This will also allow people to progress at whatever pace they're comfortable with, rather than being forced to slow down or speed up to the pace of a specific university.

Undergraduate degrees have basically become a job requirement, something everyone has or should have, when they used to be something that only the elite would have. It's hard to reverse this process, but maybe top universities can retreat one stage further and let the lesser universities fight for the scraps of the undergraduate world.

Here's another important function of universities: they don't merely provide a good environment for but legitimize taking 4 years out of the workforce and immersing oneself in philosophy, English, mathematics, alcohol, or whatnot. This is probably due to things like the prestige of getting into various schools in the first place, the perception that going away to school makes you more responsible, that it provides a better learning environment than studying at home by yourself, and that you're forced to work at some minimal pace.

Arguably, self-study of undergraduate materials might become the new norm, but until it's feasible for students to really immerse themselves in scholarship over a long period and come out with comparable results to Ivy schools, these institutions don't need to change regardless of progress in the quality of online learning materials and networks. This is really just another form of 'credentialism': until you can actually get an online certification from MIT, not just taking their courses, society (including employers and financiers) won't be very accepting of this. And, of course, given the way the job market is heading for those without university degrees, one would be wise to try borrowing against the cost of a 'good' education rather than trying to work part-time and study over a longer period.

So we are still stuck with the 'credentialism' problem until a new MIT appears and starts administering really tough exams, free of courses ... or something ...

Does anyone else think that the student loan industry is creating inflation in and around universities? I mean the cost of tuition and books is outpacing inflation. The property markets around those schools remain red hot all the time. I can't help but think that part of the problem here is that 19 and 20 year old kids are able to put their hand on 15-20K in the form of student loans and start outbidding each other for housing, etc.

To me it seems likely that something like the sub prime meltdown could cause the mass EEE.

I think many colleges will indeed disappear. It's only natural that the college bubble will burst as the number of 4 year colleges has exploded in the last 50 years. But I think universities will be relatively safe; at least the big, prestigious ones.

Universities only partially exist because of education. Most of the hiring is done based on research, and a lot of the funding comes from grants. Yes, part of the money comes from the students. But the movement of the Ivies towards needs-blind admittance in addition to grant-only financial aid (i.e. no loans) means it doesn't matter as much as it does to other universities. And of course, the Ivies have that intangible and resilient allure of prestige. The upper class will always pay for that.

If education is a commodity, the university system is doomed. It faces a fairly severe challenge even if it’s not a commodity, but the headlong rush to uniformity and scalability is incompatible with the posh role of the prof.

And I doubt research is the answer absent an intense corporatizing influence that would functionally turn the university into a research arm of industry, which will leave little space for education.

Im still thinking of my own thoughts on this topic.

Whilst I try and grapple with this notion and potential implications I would like to ask a question of my fellow HN'ers. ( especially those who have posted so far )

Have you been to university?

Do you have a degree or something else from a university?

I ask these questions as I think its important to get a little background of the person who is posting there views.

I do have a degree in "Information Technology no less Majoring in Data communications".

My gut feeling is, there will always be a place for universities. I further believe there will be a huge growth market in self paced study via the internet which will not be linked primarily to universities. Further more, I want to believe that universities will be geared more towards those who are able to "do it for themselves".

"do it for themselves" - I believe will get taught / inspired at school ( high school etc ) via social networks and via social / console games to a point.

I think the future is bright for learning.

I know this is a technological forum, and that the article proposes that technology will make universities obsolete, but the universities, and in fact all schools are great homogenizers. I reject the notion that people need to become socialized and need to network within a school-like system. This didn't happen two hundred years ago, arguably our nation's hey-day.

When we are all Ramblin' Wrecks or Fighting Illini, sure we're easier to market to, and so business people can make their money, but we're also easier to govern, and let's face it, we're too easy to govern right now. Senators are, with few exceptions, elected for life, and most head to D.C. as paupers and leave as kings. We need more individualism and that is why I reject the premise of two of Lipton's arguments: networking and socialization.

Educate students -- lecturing doesn't work. Best is working from the best material in small groups of peers and having help available from graduate students.

Socialise students -- learning to get on with people is best done with friends.

Networking -- done online.

Research and innovation -- yes. that's what universities are about.

Optimum path for students is now online self-study undergraduate degree. Can complete quickly or as slowly as required. Then go to university if you want to do a PhD.

Easy to say "we'll make it available online." Not all that difficult to implement either.

But doing it well so as to be engaging as well as educational is very difficult. On par with finding extraordinary teachers.

There are many instructors at the university level. Then there are those few we all remember. It's no different with online instruction. There's a lot of material already, but then there's those few gems of production that truly educate.

I do think that the problems with higher education are directly related to the drop in standards of our high school system. I get the feeling a revolution in the high school system will go a long way to fixing the focus and need for higher education.

One interesting thing about doing educational videos, you can pre-produce a "lecture" and then have the teacher around for Q&A (during - just switch to the live camera/ after).

Of course, I could of have don all of my Chemistry lab work via an online course! I suppose for Liberal Arts classes it may be viable, but not of the sciences.

there is no way that university of phoenix or its ilk will replace major universities. period.