Universities will be 'irrelevant' by 2020, Brigham Young professor says | Hacker News Reader

Universities will be 'irrelevant' by 2020, Brigham Young professor says

deseretnews.com

37 pointsca98am7939 comments

Science labs will all be virtual? Yeah, right. Sometimes you need to get your hands dirty and reading about it or watching it does not provide the same experience. This guy seems to be really in-love with computer-mediated education, but seems to have a big blind spot regarding the experiences it will never provide and the weaknesses inherent in the medium.

The whole process of higher-education will change significantly in the next ten years, but not so much that the university will disappear, become irrelevant, or even be unrecognizable to anyone familiar with its current form. File this one under "futurist with a book or contracting gigs to sell..."

I can see some degrees becoming virtual, computer science may be one, but things like those based on history or other less interactive environments may be perfect for virtual learning however as a student for an engineering degree I would no way have learned anywhere near as much online than interaction with labs and the interactive environment with professors (asking questions/correcting/furthering understanding).

I know the comments below illuminate some good examples, but what experiences specifically do you feel can never be replaced by a virtual environment?

I agree that it is not quite there yet, but with an increase in internet speeds and some fancy videoconferencing it might not be that far off...

I would say that online lectures and current video-conferencing provides about 80-90% equivalent experience while the class size is above 50 or so; once you get to smaller classes the online lecture becomes about as worthwhile as a lecture on DVD. Beyond general survey courses it is of marginal benefit to anyone who is not an autodidact. Some of the current high-end video-conference setups come close (e.g. the ones that are basically multiple cameras and a screen that is wall-sized) but these are really only suitable for point-to-point remote learning and not situations where the "class" will be distributed in hundreds of locations.

The experience of plugging in a diode backwards vs a popup that says "pop". When getting it wrong means you can't get it right (without replacing components) you pay more attention to what you're doing.

Labwork is supposedly, at least within your major, training for doing original research. Without the rich complexity and messiness of the real world you are not going to learn what potential problems (and especially, unexpected details) to watch for. For those going through the motions for "breadth" courses, VR (once it's good enough) would be fine.

I'm sure they'll all be virtual one day, at least as far as basic science is concerned. But they'll also be called holo decks and not science labs. ;)

well considering the fact that you need to go to a special building to go to your labs class, I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen in the future.

Take your lecture online. And once a week come in to take the lab class

And who will pay the for the instructors, the manuals, the instruments, the lab materials, etc?

At least for science labs, there's no "special building", just a specialized room. Also, in majors such as biology universities house research projects that can give students the chance to practically apply their knowledge. I doubt other research organizations, like corporations, would be as willing to teach students in the same way. Even if they did, it'd be a shame for a student's first experience with real science to be for commercial pursuits and not basic science.

Teachers unions have way too much influence for anything to happen within the establishment. We're in a downward spiral. Government is only getting bigger and if anything the unions will only strengthen their position. The establishment will largely contribute to the end of American hegemony largely for personal gain and power. Don't believe for a second that the heart of people who run the academy is demonstrably any different from people who run every major corporation.

Obama is in the process of punishing large "Republican" institutions like banks and the military industrial complex and shifting the balance of power to more favorable institutions like the academy. You're naive if you think it's anything more than polishing the brass on the titanic.

I have much more hope in programs like YCombinator -- hopefully regulation won't prevent hybrid/apprentice programs from being created in other disciplines.

The title is incredibly inflamatory and a vast overreach, but the contents of the article are much more moderated.

The actual contents of the article talk much more about university's need to adapt and use the new technology and never says they will be fully irrelevant.

Being currently enrolled in an online master's degree program for computer science at Illinois, I can tell you that I don't feel as if I am getting as much out of it as I did as an undergrad. The lectures are far more convenient in an online form since I can watch them at any time, pause them, rewind them, jump around the slides. Occasionally, I wish that I could be able to ask questions, but I know that I can always email the prof. separately or involve the entire class by posting a question to a newsgroup. Newsgroups (and forums), by the way, are great in this setup.

Unfortunately, my experiences in working on a project (pretty much for every class) leave a lot to be desired. Working remotely with others can be really difficult due to schedule conflicts and lack of face-to-face communication. Skype-ing is amazingly helpful, but is no way close to sitting down with your teammates in a study room and brainstorming/hacking. Long silences while thinking becomes awkward when you can't see other's body language. I suppose video chat could help here, but I still think the teamwork experience is really lost when this kind of study is completely online.

People had similar ideas when television came out. Televised lectures were an early part of the American public television movement and Open University in the UK. Yet they never managed to make much of a dent in the established way of educating people, mainly because interaction and the process of dialogue does not easily carry over to the electronic realm.

The same can be said for many online education now -- asynchronous communications with professors and classmates using email and discussion boards is hardly a substitute for being able to raise your hand to ask questions or start debates on the fly.

I've seen some interesting experiments in real-time online class sessions using virtual worlds and other tools, but the technology still needs a lot of work to make it easier for educators and students to use.

Very true. Another point that often gets ignored by those who think online education will replace standard lectures and discussions is the fact that a decent lecturer can get a lot of feedback just by watching the non-verbal responses to the progress of the lecture. It is not hard to notice when everyone is bored, when most of the class has that universal puzzled look that lets the prof know that she needs to go back and re-explain the last point, etc. None of this comes through the real-time virtual channel and until this problem is solved the online course will be a pale substitute for the real thing.

Going to a more prestigious and expensive institution isn't just about the diploma anyway. It's a 4 year long networking event where you build relationships with people that will help you for the rest of your life. That's something that can't be replaced by virtual classrooms and listening to course material on your ipod.

Couldn't technology also replace, or at least substantially undercut, the networking as well? Granted, it's not the same as face-to-face interaction, but I would say that social networking through the internet can provide many of the same benefits that college does.

I don't think getting drunk while chatting online is going to build the same sort's of bonds.

That's not quite what I meant. Maybe it's exclusive to programmers, but newsgroups, blogs, and sites like HN, GitHub, StackOverflow, and Twitter all serve to allow someone to distinguish themselves and be recognized by their peers. If networking simply means getting drunk and chatting, online or no, then I fail to see how that's helpful as a career-builder.

Universities don't have monopoly on networking. Yes it's easy to network while you're all students but it's also quite random. Probably only a handful people of those early networks will be any use for you since people tend to go different ways.

It's actually more effective to find your own area and network there.

It's not just the networking; it's the status you get from going to such an institution, especially if it's 'elite'. I guessing there are relatively few 18-year-olds who consider the networking potential of university, wheras lots probably go as it's the thing they're expected to do. I'm a student now, and a lot of my friends don't seem to have learning as their main priority, in fact I'm not sure what their priority is. Thus, even if this guy's ideas do provide a better learning experience, it's not like people will abandon uni for them.

Has this effect been quantified? I've heard this repeated over and over again, but I am skeptical that it would be the deciding factor in the success of a very capable person. (It might well be the deciding factor for a less capable person.) None of the people I know who went to expensive private universities got their current job through a college-related connection, though I work in the tech industry, which may be biasing the results.

But I think the bigger point is, once online classes are regarded as every bit as educational and valid as in-person classes, going to a more prestigious and expensive institution will no longer be about the (perceived better) education and the networking, but only about the networking. This may be a harder sell, both for prospective students, and for the image of the institution in the wider world.

Sorry, no. Even if you have courses where no labs are required, human interaction and the high bandwidth of face-to-face communication with dedicated teachers is invaluable.

90% of the value of universities is not in the lectures - I can mostly replace lectures with textbooks already. It's in the ability to ask questions, the hands-on experience I get, and the immersion in [and competition with] a group of people with similar interests and abilities.

"But BYU, he notes, might be a special case. Students will likely still flock there for the two extra benefits the school offers: a religious education and the chance to meet and marry an LDS Church member."

Are you kidding me, I thought that's why there are churches in this country.

> Are you kidding me, I thought that's why there are churches in this country.

You already know the folks in your own church.

Think of it as cross-pollination.

Ah, of course, I was wondering what this articles equivalent of "But it won't happen to us because we're special!" would be.

Interesting, but I find it odd that he discounts how universities will change and adapt. Will the university of today be irrelevant in 10 years? Absolutely. But most universities are successful because they've adapted several times in the past.

Universities will have to change, certainly, in order to respond to the ways students are learning but there is still a need for some sort of institutionalized vetting process (Read: diploma) for many types of careers. Providing an employer a list of the lectures you listened to on youtube isn't going to cut it if you are going into the medical field or if you want to design bridges or airplanes.

My university has existed for nearly 500 years, and I seriously doubt that this new interwebs thing will change the world so much that universities will become irrelevant. I cry Hogwash!

Wiley is one of the advisers to the University of the People project.

Interesting note, BYU is operated by the LDS Church, who also operates Institutes of Religion with facilities near many colleges throughout the world, and they are making tremendous investments in communications technology and distance learning.

This strikes me as a 64k will be enough for everyone kind of statement...

Unless another institution springs up allowing rich kids to get drunk before they're 21, I suspect the University isn't going anywhere.

Right, because everyone who goes to college is rich and primarily motivated by alcohol, since as everyone knows most alcohol consumption for teens starts in college.

University gives you the chance to have more or less complete control of your time and at least learn to be responsible for yourself, before you get a job and learn to be responsible for colleagues as well.

Right, because everyone is serious all the time.

Judging by how many lectures people skip with the justification that "the notes are online" it seems like some parts of the current university set up could possibly change with things like online video lectures. On the other hand, a good professor will speed up, slow down, answer questions, etc.. which will surely be difficult to bring to an online format.

Can someone point me out to the video "What If." mentioned in the Article. I tried searching in Youtube but just couldn't find it.

I think this is it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2855786550703993653...

Thanks a lot. :) This video made my day.

While I'd be glad to see this happen, he's focusing on the wrong thing. As I said in another thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=642828), even if he's right about all of the new technologies, it might not be enough.

What about Socializing? Or are we going to have the Matrix by 2020... or maybe we won't even be around given 2012 is the end...right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com