The changes to higher education are coming daily.

First comes the news that students taking free online courses from Harvard and MIT through EdX will be able to take a proctored exam at 450 testing centers in 110 countries.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/edx-offers-proctored-exams-for-open-online-course/39656

The BIG issue of course, is if these courses will be accepted by others, mainly employers and other universities. Employers probably count the most. If employers are willing to hire candidates who have web badges or certificates instead of university degrees, the market value of a college degree will plummet.

I believe the market will test this by hiring a few folks and seeing what happens. The for-profit world is better (and has had much incentive0 to determine the real results of different experiments.

My guess is that free online course badges won’t prove to be any better or worse that a college degree when it comes to learning. We have MOUNTAINS of evidence that you get As in college and not have a clue (as Eric Mazur discovered of his Harvard physics students) and we have equally compelling research that tells that intrinsic motivation far outweighs any possible change in pedagogy. In other words, if a student wants to learn, teaching methods make little difference. For the student who wants to learn in a free MOOC, she will, for a student who wants to be a college surface or strategic learner (See, for example, Ken Bain’s new book, What the Best College Students Do, Harvard 2012), 4 years on a college campus will still result in nothing really being learned.

So the big choice for colleges is whether to accept transfer credit from MOOCs. If they do, then students will be able to drastically able to reduce costs (take a few free courses instead of summer school and still get a regular college diploma.

The first step has happened. Some Austrian and German universities already do, but Colorado State University-Global campus has become the first US university to accept a Udactiy course for credit.
http://chronicle.com/article/A-First-for-Udacity-Transfer/134162/
This is only the Colorado State online campus, but if other colleges agree to take this credit the implications are serious.
If students can take this free Introduction to Computer Science and get transfer credit, why would they need to pay Stanford $6000 for the same product? Part of the answer will be that extra learning is offered on the Stanford campus, but Stanford had better figure out a way to demonstrate that extra learning (and justify is enormous additional cost) in a hurry.

As most not-for-profit universities stick a toe in the water of higher ed marketing, they will need to watch out the for-profit sharks that have been steadily feeding for years. If you want to get a taste of the the competition looks like, check out the Kaplan Your Time ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_5SjeUKQ-g

It is a powerful ad in lots of ways. It makes no direct claims that Kaplan will offer students a better education, but much of what it does says is true and will resonate. Talent is not just in schools and it is being wasted. we are steeped in tradition and we need to react faster.

I don’t know if Kaplan can deliver on the promise of a student-centered educational system, but I know this will be a persuasive argument for students–and it is not the message with which we must compete.

Here is a newly posted video about the changes in technology that led me to write Teaching Naked: http://mcs.smu.edu/media/content/jos-bowen-universities-should-embrace-tech

It is the beginning of the year so lots of meetings, including meetings with my technology folks. Technology needs have exploded, but budgets have not. (Yes, really, we have to spend money to protect ourselves from cyber attacks from other countries trying to mine our course catalogue. Wow, I only wish the students were as interested…)

We are trying to rethink our technology budgets. Remember “replacement cycles?” Traditionally you have a budget for computers and another for servers and network and software. Add wifi, security, tech support and more wifi. We asked a different question: suppose we STARTED with the user experience. What do people need to get the work done? We wanted to buy laptops for everyone, so we knew something would have to go. We got rid of computers in the classroom and of most of our computer labs and that saved enough money to put every faculty and soon every student on a laptop. Using the same computer for almost everyone (we made a few exceptions as needed) saved tons of money in support but limited choice, but moving to the best new models helped. (We have just moved all faculty to new Mac laptops with a choice of two machines.) We’ve also been able to put much better projectors in classrooms–since now the “refresh of a classroom” means only the projector and maybe a few buttons.

The new Macs have the amazing retinal display, but no DVD/CD player, so again we’ve had to push more support to helping faculty digitize materials. (And secretly–ok maybe not so secretly– I hope this is an incentive to show fewer complete movies in class. We can digitize a clip for you and put it in the cloud, but do you really need to show the entire movie in class?

The BIG issue though is how to think about the budget. Adding iPads adds cost and devices to support. We can’t scrimp on WiFi, but the number of devices continues to increase. I think Technology departments need a radically different budge model. What are the priorities? As software costs go up, students will need to purchase more software as part of courses, but we will need to be more careful about what students REALLY need–no more Adobe Creativee Suite for everyone. And ultimately, we are getting close to a point where not everyone needs a phone (certainly not on your desk), iPad and a laptop. But device will it be? Probably different for different types of faculty.

What seems clear is that business as usual won’t do and we need to reinvent what campus technology means.

The WSJ ran a story about the trend to hire marketing departments in response to the new competition. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444233104577591171686709792.html Ok, sure, but don’t you need first to think about how your product might be different or special? At the moment, we are all pretty much offering the same 4-year 120 degrees with the same majors. What’s to market? “We’re the same, only better!?” This is an opportunity to start a new conversation about both value and distinctiveness. Maybe your dorms are better or your rock wall is higher, but our students learn job skills, or have a broader education, or maybe our programs are three years or five years, or more geared to our local population? The marketing teams will have a hard time until we start to think more carefully about our individual value.

I’m actually for marketing here. I think it is a chance to tell folks about what you do, but i think that generic branding is pointless. It will work for state U pride–“be true to your state.” And let’s be honest, most schools already have a marketing department–it is called an athletics program, and it works.

When you win, applications go up. (When Georgetown won the NCAA Basketball tournaments, it got a huge boost in applications, but so did George washington U and George Mason U. Think about it.

If we are really going to put new labels on our cans, we had better stop and think about what is IN the can. This can be a good thing. Let’s think about what we do that is distinctive, but let’s also make sure we DELIVER as promised. What’s in your can?

Welcome to my website!!! Tomorrow I start a Teaching Naked book tour that will take me coast to coast in the next 8 months. We start in Amarillo Texas, at West Texas A&M for a faculty development day.