University of Wisconsin to offer degrees based on tested ability
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
Speaking as an educator (I teach undergrad-level CS) I would love to be able to not have to give high-stakes assessments: I'd still assign projects and give exams to be able to give students feedback and help both of us understand where they're at, but the whole process would be so much less stressful (on both sides) if the assessment-for-credit came from someone else somewhere else.
(Interestingly, I also am very interested in writing and working out how to fairly score the for-credit assessments; I just don't want them to be part of my class.)
That said, there's a lot that's a little scary about initiatives like this (from a job security standpoint), but I do think that something along these lines is both inevitable and, ultimately, the right direction to go.
Does this focus students on an outcome that is arguably less important than the process to get there?
With all the testing in American universities, the British (?) system is quite refreshing.
My uni also weighted the exams so that the final year contributed much more to the final "grade" than the first year, effectively putting most of the pressure on the final term of the last year.
In fact, I think it would be critical to do so. Students may perform well on the exam for any number of reasons other than having a good teacher, and they may perform poorly for reasons other than having a bad teacher.
> If the assessment of a student's learning comes from somewhere else, what other mechanisms could we use to evaluate the effectiveness and (or) competence of their instructors?
Well, it's not like we can use exam scores now to evaluate the college-level teachers. The sad truth is that to a large extent, most people who teach at the college level are evaluated primarily on things other than teaching. I know I'm a pretty good teacher not because of good test scores, or good evaluations, but because students come back to me months or years later and talk about things they learned in my class(es) that set them up well to find their way through a later class or a job. But that kind of feedback is very difficult to quantify.
The University of London has offered this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_degree since 1858.
I think Coursera, OpenCourseware, etc, get things backwards. They assume that the knowledge is the valuable part, and so use the online format to deliver knowledge. But in reality, the vast majority of people go to college to get the certification, not the knowledge. That's the valuable part of college education and that's what U of Wisconsin is offering.
Yes and no. When I hire a Harvard grad, is it because he knows things? Well, it's because I assume he doesn't not know anything, sure. But it's also because I know he must have done very well on his SAT's, and must be a really hard worker and very mature if he was able to get the perfect grades in high school you need to get into Harvard. I also know that his network, by virtue of going to Harvard, is probably better than that of someone who didn't go there.
It's much more complex than you make it out to be.
However, there's only a handful of "Harvards". Whatever exact argument you're trying to make (it's a bad thing? it's not going to happpen?), it doesn't scale down past the Ivy League, or it doesn't scale very far.
Besides, past the initial adaptation period, it's not like these credentials are going to be handed out like candy (those that are will be ignored, just as such credentials are today); serious ones like engineering degrees are still going to be years-long affairs. Are you going to prefer the student who showed enough dedication to do it without an enormous centuries-old structure holding their hands and dragging them along with proscribed structure, or the one that did it on their own? I expect significant chunks of the Ivy League to survive; whether they end up held in the universal esteem they are today I consider to be much more up in the air. They may acquire a much more rarified audience, while the rest of the world begins to look at them as a sort of easy way out....
Well, they did what they can. It's very hard to invent a new institution with a trusted reputation, almost by definition.
Also, the dissemination of knowledge is the part that scales the most. Evaluation is tough and expensive, especially if you are trying even modestly to prevent cheating.
Someone could go to a MOOC to learn the stuff, then get the assessment from UWisconsin.
That is the model I expect to predominate in the long term, actually.
Now, it may be possible to trick this sometimes or for some time, but if it would be possible consistently universities would long have become meaningless.
Ideally, companies would like to just know exactly what ability you have. However, testing for that is a long, expensive, complicated and hard task. Testing for ability is a hard problem, one you probably need specialized personal for (with knowledge of what abilities exactly you want to test for and the social science chops to make an actual worthwhile test happen). That’s one of the reasons why universities exist.
But this removedness from what companies actually want is also the reason why it’s not perfectly efficient, i.e. you sometimes have to learn stuff you don’t actually need.
All this does is make the "teaching" pary of the course optional.
It's still that way in most law school classes.
It was in Cairns, which actually narrows it down quite a bit if you want to google it.
http://chronicle.com/article/Providers-of-Free-MOOCs-Now/136...
Even at the low end of the medical field, here in Illinois, EMT-I and EMT-P (paramedic) require both clinic time and a practical (live simulation) exam.
You simply implement something similar for engineering.
There's more theoretical knowledge behind nursing and engineering compared to carpentry and plumbing, but, really, the idea of on-the-job training with someone who knows what they're doing watching is something we know works because it has worked for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
So some degree programs will entail an apprenticeship. That's going to be a lot more difficult to game than a multiple-choice exam would be.
In fact, I've witnessed this, as has pretty much anybody here who has ever given an interview to a college grad with a very pretty GPA who flames out of the interview barely able to tie their shoes in code. Either they literally cheated their way through college, or more likely, just overfocused on the credential part of the process, but they don't make it into a position to do damage. (And if they did, well, whatever system accepted them probably isn't long for this world anyhow or has long since adapted to letting those people in and still somehow keeps them away from Big Red Buttons.)
An apprentice might make a wind tunnel model designed by an engineer but they would probably know zero about CFD.
I do wish people who have never worked in proper engineering would stop throwing craft and apprentice in to discussions when they have no understanding of what they are taking about.
- study for your CS degree (formerly 'Diplom', now Bachelor/Master) at a university for a couple years
- do a 2.5/3 year thing including school and working in a company (actually having a company to take you on is required for these kinds of degrees most of the time). It's - an apprenticeship (using the same process, word and methodology as you'd use in a crafting skill)
Do you get the very same job offers, the same salary? Probably not. But I'd say that you have the chance to work on the same stuff as any bachelor/master of CS. I think the disadvantage is merely in the first couple of years and often (note: Not always. Sometimes the more theoretical CS background counts a lot, of course) unfairly so.
So - yeah. You can do an apprenticeship here. Starting with 16 (you'd be done with 19) or 18-19 (you'd probably be allowed to shorten the time to 2 years -> 20, 21).
Disclaimer: I have neither a ~normal~ degree from a university nor did I do this apprenticeship. But - it works.
And I seem to recall the German education system has some quite strict streaming. I think going from apprentice-> ->technician->engineer (or similar level of job) might be harder in Germany than it is in the UK or US.
Having said that Germany has a very powerfull vocational training system unlike any where else in the world.
So, two things.
1) You claimed that an apprenticeship is only for crafts and I told you that this isn't the case here. Locally your 'strictly craft skills' comment would be wrong. Very much so.
2) Yeah, a degree matters in some/most places, like everywhere else in the world I guess. That's not related to apprenticeships in particular though (having done stuff like that is better than having nothing of value in writing at all, like .. me). And too general to be 'truthy'.
Back to the topic: Apprentices (and former apprentices) are not unable to do the job of an engineer.
And how many senior engineers at Audi and BMW and Mercedes started as apprentices.
In the English speaking word this is not the case we are look upon as greasy almost sub human.
for example the wife of the no2 at bt labs you know the place where the first computer was designed and built when she said that he husband was an engineer she was asked patronizingly "oh thats nice dear what sort of cars does he work on"
I never really even had a chance to think about a degree.
Maybe now I should!
Or maybe think about learning some of the things you missed out on by not having the time to go to college (mostly non tech stuff I guess).
Perhaps a degree is really just a well thougth out education plan more than a certificate. You learn this list of things and you are "educated" to some level generally (a liberal arts BA & BS) with an emphasis on some subjects (your majors). More advanced or vocational degrees would be more focused plans on a single area.
More regulated areas simply require a piece of paper. Not that this always seems to help: in California to be a mortgage broker you need a real estate license which requires you pass several college level classes, take an long exam, get fingerprinted and have a certain amount of experience. Yet none of this prevented all the problems we recently saw.
Colleges are just delaying, not avoiding, their end by focusing on the verification. First, because they don't have the cost structure to compete effectively on verification. You don't need to spend $40,000 a year just to take a few tests. And, second, testing is not a stable long-term strategy for colleges because once they lose their status as the best place to learn, they will also lose their status as the best place to be tested. That is, I suspect that once Udacity becomes known as the best place to learn computer science, Udacity will begin offering certification tests that will have more prestige than colleges.
This has never made sense to me. Knowledge is knowledge - who cares where it came from? I'm not saying other things are not learned in college - yes teamwork is important and such. But you can literally learn that in any situation. What about experience? If you're not actively trying to go to school, and doing BS work, you can actually get a relevant job, show some creativity in your field, or (I wish) hopefully get an apprenticeship. I hope these come back some day - the learning is unparalleled.
Three years ago, I spoke to a friend about designing a computer science bachelor's exam. It could literally be as grueling as you want, over a 10 day period, and you could charge up to $5,000 easily. Most people I spoke to said they had concerns about people "cramming for the exam". In truth, those people do not know how to design tests. It is VERY easy to prevent cramming, especially with such material, all you need is a little creativity. By "prevent cramming" I mean creative questions that force the candidate to know the material so well that cramming --> learning involuntarily.
I chose to start with a comp sci exam because it requires the least physical resources for the exam (no circuits, no lab, no nothing). Eventually, other degrees could be created once a proof of concept had been completed.
The original reason Universities were created were for efficiency (source: Sir Ken Robinson's TED talk). Teaching 50 students by mail, making each one order each textbook and other reference texts is crazily inefficient. Locating them all in one place, having lectures for all 50 students at once, and a library where all relevant texts are held is much better. What we're seeing now is just a modern version. Instead of lectures, we have video. Instead of library, we have ebooks/internet/curated content.
Sorry if I rambled for a bit, I'm very passionate about this issue. The thing is, without power in the field, changing education is hard. This is definitely the gateway, and I'm happy that I get to see all the fantastic (but slow for me) changes. The next step is re-optimizing spending in high schools. My mother works at a high school, and the stories I hear about wasteful technology spending are hard to hear.
Possibly to a lesser degree, fees, accessibility, that sort of thing.
I would expect MIT's exams to be outright impossible for a mortal to pass.
University of Wisconsin's will be nearly impossible to pass even with concerted study.
Northern Illinois will be possible to pass with study.
and then there will be institutions whose certifications don't mean a whole lot. There's no question about that.
But MOST people will try to pass the impossible ones... because the payoff will be so much bigger. Only a few will pass though. I'm thinking the tests will be designed that way. I strongly suspect getting a degree from UMichigan, UWisconsin, UTexas, Berkeley, etc. will be MUCH easier if you just attend. But this is a good option for those who, for whatever reason, don't wish to do so.
There is a keen difference between the two I think.
I know HN has a thing against college education, but I sincerely believe that neither major relevant information nor a piece of paper certifying that were the most valuable things I got from my time in college.
Peer interaction and exposure, exposure to ideas and studies outside of my apparent interests, practice with long-term commitment and responsibility, etc. These are all things that you can certainly, perhaps even easily, have without going to college... but a college education serves as a certification of these things as well.
The "relevant coursework" part of a college degree is not of particular interest to me (I saw complete idiots get the same degree as I did, and I know many people without relevant degrees that know as much as I). Given two candidates of equal knowledge, one with no degree and one with a degree in art history, I would hire the art history guy with little hesitation.
I don't think you can say one is better than other. You will find great and not so great people in both groups. As always, you need to evaluate the individual, not the piece of paper.
I do think that they are certainly different though. It should not be the same piece of paper because both routes, regardless of relative merits, are very different animals.
The non-college acquisition is likely to be part of a wider more connected level of knowledge too as that knowledge - that matches the college acquired knowledge - is a snapshot, the college educated person is more likely to be limited by the boundaries of the course material.
In order to acquire such knowledge in the field the non-college applicant is likely to have needed just the same interpersonal skills and a whole heap of drive and enthusiasm for their subject matter. On top of that they, presumably, have proven ability in their field if someone has been paying them a living whilst they've been applying this knowledge.
>Given two candidates of equal knowledge, one with no degree and one with a degree in art history, I would hire the art history guy with little hesitation. //
Art History is awesome; a single term of that at undergrad level enriched my life considerably. That aside the guy with art history and (presumably) programming knowledge is likely to have a useful diversity of approach.
I think I'd have a greater expectation that the subset {k} of the candidates domain knowledge implies a larger superset {K} for the non-college candidate.
[disclosure: I'm uni educated and don't work as a programmer]
A college education doesn't serve as a certification of exposure to new ideas and studies or long-term commitment and responsibility. No, one example of long-term commitment and responsibility is taking the route less traveled, knowing all the while that you are succeeding, while others laugh at your seemingly obvious missteps.
Tell me, how would you evaluate a person that skated through HS with Cs and Ds; duplicated the same effort in community college for one and a half years before dropping out; and then showed up at your company looking for a job? You'd probably show him or her the door, when you should have asked what was done in lieu of grinding through school. Then maybe you would find the person with a certified thirst for new ideas and studies who has more dedication and commitment than any college graduate, but feels that the education system is slow, broken, and nonqualitative.
Allow me to brush this chip off my shoulder. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from as well, and I love the entire school experience. But UW is taking the right step forward for people whom deplore the superfluous evaluations such as attendance and homework, to name a few.
UW can consider me one of their first customers.
On a related note of "credit based on knowledge", I am always fond of college professors who have the policy "If you make an 'A' on the final, you make an 'A' in the class", the premise being that you clearly have learned the material, and their job is to make sure you know the material.
I do have one class where doing well on the final project can get a failing student a passing grade though. But the project requires they apply what they've learned.
I see no reason why this UW initiative can't work the same way. I hope that it can work this way and attract credibility, since it would make it easier for people like myself who find the spiraling cost of college tuition hard to manage.
Thus I'm not hopeful.
And to be honest, they're gonna get their money from you one way or another. :)
Had he just been asking us to recite implementations of quicksort and whatnot I might agree with you, but I think that your premise is flawed. Not all final exams are what you have described.
Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic from my experiences, but I'd bet the tests'll be multiple-choice, just like the UW entrance exams are.
Because it's easier for a machine to grade them.
EDIT: the article does say the faculty will be creating the tests. That does give me hope.
I started in Sept. 1987, I passed my last exam in December and started graduate school in January (didn't graduate). It was a wonderful program. I even wrote a book about it and sold maybe 25 copies.
That degree has helped me get several jobs that required a college degree, and now I'm getting ready to go back to grad school again.
The future of education isn't in testing. That's not education at all, really. The future is going to be in helping the student to develop a body of work that can be evaluated. There will be testing, but here's what it will be: every bit of work will be recorded, and evaluated. It'll mostly be evaluated by computer programs.
Think about it. If you have a test with 150 questions, how is that really better than, say, 500 homework problems? If you have a few 500 word test essays, how is that better than, say, 5,000 words, with some stats about time taken, revisions, and other information about the body of work?
Look at "flipped classrooms" where students read and watch lectures at home and then come to class prepared to discuss and perform.
I don't think I'm an exceptioanl teacher but I think I'm quite good, and students who've taken online classes prefer having some face-to-face time with me and other students because I don't lecture and read powerpoints for 60 minutes.
Any instructor/professor that lectures, recites, and PowerPoints is absolutely in danger of being replaced by an online course because they add little value.
If you give people a test they can take online, how long do you think it will be before the answers get out there and people are just easily getting degrees? The degrees will mean less than they do now.
I can tell you from both the student side and the teacher side that students who cannot perform the tasks required in their field can still pass tests. The "fizz-buzz" failers, for example.
I will be 100% okay with this approach, however, if they are performance-based assessments. The college I teach at is moving in that direction - students must practice for and demonstrate the abilities for the competencies.
I've never been a believer in tests, so I like performance based learning, especially for programming.
The tests are very unlikely to be online. The most probable scenario is that they are proctored at local professional test centers just like nearly every other distance education program.
Protoring costs money. The idea here is to charge for degrees while keeping resources the same, or reducing them. I can give you a few online tests, charge you $12,000 for an accredited degree, and we both win. You get a degree without having to show up, and nobody has to extend resources other than a little bit of time to grade your stuff.
The problem has always been that University branding matters, so a Cambridge degree counts as real in a way that an Open University degree doesn't. (http://www.open.ac.uk/)
In the same way, the new online courses are not good enough. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation)
This problem has been bad because some people are hardworking and talented enough but are excluded from places like Cambridge and Harvard for socially damaging reasons: the are from the wrong background, too poor etc etc.
It would always have been saner to separate the credentials from the expensive on-site-tuition, so the poor kid from Madras would find it easier to get his Cambridge degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan)
But the University prestige has allowed places like Harvard and Stanford to jack up the list prices of their fees, and their competitors nationally and internationally have followed along. The top US places have been able to do so, I have been told, because of the expansion of student loan availability, leading to a pricing level that may not be feasible. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-has-alarming-level-of-p...)
The result is that colleges may have priced themselves out of the market (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2116059,00.ht...) (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-22/five-reasons-colleg...)
I hope more Universities do the right thing, and respond in an accommodating manner, as Wisconsin has done, as a way to climb down from that tree. It's about time. (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/25/public-univers...)
They set a very high list price and then offer "scholarships" because this allows them to efficiently segment the market. If they did it the other way around (cheap "base" price and then escalating prices), it would cause horrible brand damage and arouse regulatory interest.
Financially, though, it's identical.
Notice how many retail places offer "cash discounts" rather than having "credit card surcharges".
Financially identical. Psychologically, worlds apart.
For example, here is the price page for the Harvard MBA: http://www.hbs.edu/mba/financial-aid/Pages/cost-summary.aspx
Harvard do not give more than 50% scholarships.
So we are taking about 54K over a 2 year period, just for fees, excluding accommodation, food and health insurance.
That is enough to keep all kinds of people out. And this is for MBA, a course that has a relatively high probability of leading to a job. The effect will be much more acute for Art History.
A college education exists to teach you how to learn. A programmer who took 30 years to acquire skills that took another 4 years could be wholly inappropriate, especially if you want problems solved in reasonable time. My professors proudly stated that they had forgotten more than they had learned. A college education carries a cognitive component that must also be addressed.
A successful college degree requires persistence, organization, and emotional stability. A critical deficit in these attributes may make somebody incompatible with the modern work environment. It is not hard to imagine someone who bails early or is not sufficiently organized to asses the problem.
tl;dr Something other than technical skills happened during those 4 years