Another disruption in higher education: the teaching university
Posted by michael_horn | Under Higher Education Wednesday Oct 22, 2008Let’s revisit the topic of disruption in higher education, but from a different angle. In the past, I’ve written about community colleges and online universities targeting non-consumption, but there is a policy dimension to this as well.
Henry Eyring has a great piece about it in Strategy & Innovation called “Let Disruption Fix Higher Education” (Innosight, LLC, the consulting firm that Clayton Christensen co-founded, publishes Strategy & Innovation; you’ll need to register to log in, but it’s free, takes only a moment, and is well worth it).
In the article, Eyring writes that the average cost of a 4-year degree has risen 76 percent in the past 10 years. Unsurprisingly, government feels the need to halt this. There have been reports—The Spellings Commission’s, for example—and Congressional action. One such act proposes creating “lists to embarrass colleges that increase their tuition significantly.”
As Eyring points out, although well intended, this is unlikely to have real impact. The real answer? Disruption—namely teaching universities disrupting research universities.
A key point from the article is that teaching universities are less expensive because they don’t have a cost component devoted to a research university’s real product and priority: its research (nope, not preparing its students for the workforce!). Although the classroom works similarly in both of these environments, because the two universities types have different value propositions, profit models or priorities, and processes (in other words, a different business model), the two are actually quite different. With different metrics to judge its different and lower-cost business model, the teaching university is disruptive relative to the research university.
The corollary might be that online universities and community colleges are really subsets of the teaching university category, which is a more descriptive term perhaps? Or one could argue that online universities have a new classroom labor model as well and therefore are a different category? I’ll have to think more about this–and would welcome comments, but read the article to learn more and see how this model is changing the higher-education landscape—as well as to read Eyring’s proposals for how government could act.
There are other disruptions emerging in higher education that change the classroom labor model, such as Smarthinking’s StraighterLine, which is worth a blog post some time soon.
[...] Christensen co-founded, publishes Strategy & Innovation). In the article, Eyring writes tha Source Education - [...]
You really hit the nail on the head here, Michael. Options like StraighterLine’s “StraighterLine for $99″ (http://www.straighterline.com/straighterline-for-99/) seem like part of a natural recourse to unchecked tuition inflation. They and others simply have compartmentalized the element of college most pertinent to students trying to obtain their education.
I found a helpful video about StraighterLine that I recommend people check out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfnZNOHgeGc. The company web site is: http://www.straighterline.com.
I guess that the obvious question is: Why Now?
The online education complex as it emerges is now enabled. But very little has changed for ‘teaching universities.’
Why didn’t they disrupt 5 years ago?
Nethy, that’s a good question. I think the answer actually has been that they have been disrupting state universities anyway for some time. Community colleges are a form of teaching colleges and they’ve been around and growing consistently for years. I think it was the Michigan President who told Clay that half of the state’s students who graduate from the 4-year schools in fact do their first two years now at the state’s community colleges.
[...] worth remembering how many so-called “innovations” in education were justified by the corporate model. Now we all know how well that is working [...]
[...] written about this on this blog before (see this post for example). History shows that trying to make a product or service affordable by beating down on [...]
[...] I read Clayton Christensen’s Disrupting Class book, and saw Rob Preston’s reaction to it here and again here — I can’t help [...]
[...] is higher than ever. This is a big problem. But as we’ve pointed out in many posts on this site (here and here, just to give two examples), the solution isn’t to subsidize tuition to expensive [...]