Should a College Degree be Convenient?

The Jain Family Institute (JFI) just released a fascinating analysis and tool that explores, what they term, the geography of higher education access. The analysis is intriguing.  They develop a school concentration index (details here) utilizing zip tabulation area data. An interactive visualization tool accompanies their analyses. Impressive stuff!

Fundamental to the analysis is the fact that:

The majority — 56.2 percent — of public four-year college students attend an institution under an hour’s drive away, and nearly 70 percent attend within two hours of their home, according to the latest Higher Education Research Institute’s CIRP survey (via econofact). 

Interestingly, JFI's analyses, and the interactive graphic, enables visualization of concentration with a 30 min., 45 min., or 60 min. distance.  It would be useful to see the data for a two-hour drive radius.

Two key challenges I see with  the analysis published are:

• First, geographic proximity is assumed to be essential.  This ignores online education opportunities available to part-time and full time students seeking higher education. The data for online programs suggest that most choose an institution geographically proximate. However, for online students. campus access is less important.
  
• Second, students are assumed to be homogeneous;  segments within higher ed evidence important behavioral differences.  Students pursuing an associates degree via face-to-face courses, generally, are part-time students and commute to/from campus.  For this segment, geographic proximity is important to enable integration of pursuing an education with work, family, and other life activities.
  
  Students pursuing a bachelors degree on a part-time basis similarily benefit from geographic proximity of campus to home.
  
  Students pursuing a bachelors degree full-time come in two flavors. Flavor one is the 'traditional' college model in which the student lives on or near campus. Geographic proximity of campus to home is less critical. These are the students that, per the data above, likely live a one to two hour drive from home.  Full-time students that elect to live at home and commute to campus are a second flavor. These students can save a considerable amount by living at home. At many schools, the cost of room and board exceeds the cost of tuition (net not gross). For these students, geographic proximity (i.e., a commute of less than an hour is critical). Commuter students in a major metro area, such as greater New York City, have access to mass transit options (e.g., train) that are not available in less populous areas. 

Does convenience matter for students pursuing higher education? As with anything interesting, it's complicated. I believe the short answer is yes. But that requires acknowledging and factoring into the analysis important differences between student segments.  A drive distance that may deter a student interested in pursuing an associates degree part-time may be viewed positively by a student seeking to live on campus and pursue their degree on a full-time basis (think buffer from 'surprise' parental visits).  This requires that the data be modeled separately for each student segment.   

NOTE: My interest is in understanding factors that might inhibit academically qualified and financially capable individuals from pursuing higher education.

Don't Kno, Do Kindle

Ebooks are the future of higher education. A compelling and inexpensive reader device is necessary for that to happen.  We're getting there, but the sweet-spot hasn't been hit yet. I love my Kindle. It is great for leisure reading. And I do a lot of that. However, the screen on the standard Kindle is too small to view the full page  figures and tables that populate much of my work related reading.  Fortunately, the Kindle platform is ubiquitous. I can view my Kindle books on myriad other devices. So, when I encounter a full page table with text too small to read on the Kindle's screen -- I can leverage the Kindle platform's ubiquity and switch to reading the Kindle book on my laptop or netbook. Ideal? No. However, it gets the job done.

The Kindle DX addresses the viewability concerns with its larger screen (9.7" vs 6" diagonal).  At a current price of $379, the DX almost has me adopting a second Kindle. Almost. But is it a compelling value proposition for higher ed students?  I don't think so. At $199, maybe.

Key is whether work flow (research or studying, for students) is most efficient with special purpose devices (such as the Kindle reader) or with multi purpose devices (such as the iPad). Or does it matter? The Kindle platform's support for highlighting of passages and insertion of comments/notes yields a powerful research/study tool that I find easier to use than my conventional practice of having a PDF open on one monitor and a Google Docs doc open on a second to capture my notes. Ultimately, the Kindle not about the Kindle Reader hardware but about the Kindle Platform.

The ubiquity of the Kindle Platform is the key strength of the Kindle solution relative to a conventional dead tree book. A conventional book exists in one point in the time space continuum. A book can be in my backpack, in my home office, or at my campus office, for example.  A physical book can't be all three places simultaneously.  There is nothing more frustrating than getting home only to realize that a book I need is at my campus office (50 miles away). A Kindle book is always available to me.  Even when I don't have my Kindle reading device with me.  Amazon is about to launch Kindle for the Web which means my books will never be further away than the closest web browser. No special app required.

Which brings me to the Kno,  The Kno -- billed as a "tablet textbook" -- is a large (14" diagonal) tablet computer available in single- or hinged dual-screen versions (to resemble a book).  The Kno's USP is that it operationalizes how students study: read, take notes, highlight text, watch videos, read web based content, etc. The Kno is a locked down proprietary platform (built on Linux) that supports three proprietary apps: Reader, Notes, and Browser. The reader app is for viewing digital textbooks. The notes app is for taking notes. The browser is for accessing the web.

Kno's business model is based on two primary revenue streams: hardware sales and sales through their textbook store. Adoption of the Kno implies double lock-in:  One is locked in to purchasing textbooks through a single source: the Kno textbook store. The second lock-in is that textbooks purchased for the Kno can only be viewed on the Kno. It is a closed system. The Kno duplicates one of the biggest hassles of dead-tree books: if you don't have your Kno with you, you don't have access to your books.  Or your notes. Oops.

Kindle for the Web exposes a major flaw in the Kno's business model.  Kindle for the Web suggests that users already have a key for unlocking Kno's proprietary bookstore.  There goes that revenue stream.  

The single screen limited function 16GB Kno, priced at $599, is more expensive than the very versatile 16GB Apple iPad (with a smaller 9.7" screen). And you can read all of your Kindle books (as well as books from other vendors) on the iPad. How's that value proposition, Kno?

As a faculty member, I cannot, in good conscious, lock my students into a restricted purpose limited function device. Apple and an increasing cast of others offer tablet devices. Apple's system has attributes amenable to enterprise management. If Kno has a competitive advantage (and it is unclear whether they do), it is in their claim that they understand better than anyone how folks study.  Kno should shift from bundling hardware and software. I think that Kno should channel what they have learned about student study habits into note taking apps for the iOS and Android platforms.  Such an approach would leverage the source of Kno's competitive advantage.

BGSU Students Against Faculty Unionization Deliver Knock-Out Blow to BGSU Faculty Union Organizers

The BGSU faculty unionization effort populates Facebook. Public pro-union and anti-union groups are in evidence. Is one more persuasive? Let's take a look:

Hmm ... the BGSU Faculty Association group page features a nice photo gallery of images of faculty gathered around a table littered with with pens, paper, and red cups. Photo captions aren't provided, so one can only imagine what the photos depict. Perhaps these images are intended to illustrate what organizing looks like?   And why red cups? To symbolize solidarity among comrades? Support for Ohio State? Are the pictures intended to illustrate commodities undeserving of tenure?

And what is one to make of this image? Should one infer that the group has no data to support their position? That the group advocates and intends to propagate a climate of fear and intimidation? Does this image afford insight into how the group is conducting their "card campaign"? Does this image reflect a group capable of critical thought and analysis?

A wall post by David L. Jackson offers "some thoughts about the BGSU-FA, our campaign, our future, and potential costs associated with collective bargaining."  Several paragraphs of meandering prose distill to two key points:

1.  Questions regarding what a union might do regard hypotheticals and it is "impossible to answer hypothetical questions about future decisions.
2. A union, if deployed would require collection of dues.  The necessity of collecting dues is not regarded as a hypothetical.  The amount of dues to be collected, however, remains a hypothetical.

Absent from Mr. Jackson's "thoughts" is any reference to how unionizing the faculty will further the mission of the institution. Also absent is any indication of how students would benefit from faculty unionization.

The BGSU FA FAQ page is similarly focussed on warm fuzzies and how faculty unionization will necessitate collection of dues. The document is stunningly silent on how the mission of the institution and BGSU students might benefit. Indeed, the document is silent on how BGSU or its faculty would materially benefit from the addition of a unionized faculty beyond the impressive benefits already codified in the BGSU Academic Charter.

Collectively, these documents lead one to wonder if the BGSU faculty supporting unionization apprehend the connection between their jobs and the institutional mission of educating students and expanding knowledge.


The BGSU Students Against Unionization evidence comparative intellectual maturity.  The student group is collaboratively constructing a list of ways unionization would impact students.  I applaud the students for their open-mindedness: "Opposing viewpoints welcomed openly to comment. I believe that this should be a "marketplace of ideas" just as a university should be..  "

If these Facebook groups afford an indication, BGSU students better apprehend the purpose and culture of a university, and the impact of unionization on that culture, than do the BGSU faculty for unionization.

I'd score this a knock-out blow for the students and an embarassment for the faculty.

The Echo Chamber and Personal Accountability

@kyenne, a recent ONU grad, tweeted about this blog post, which was scraped from this article published by TheStar on April 30, 2010, about EduMetry's Virtual TA service. That tweet generated a torrent of reaction and calls for an email to ONU's President.Why the raised fur?  The article lists ONU as an EduMetry client.

Let's take a look at the article published by TheStar.com. Basically, it's a nice PR piece for EduMetry's newest product Virtual TA. The article includes a paragraph in which several EduMetry clients are listed.  ONU is included in that list:

A western Canadian college or university is among EduMetry’s dozen clients, but Rajam declined to identify it. The University of Houston director of business law and ethics, Lori Whisenant, is a client, as are professors at the University of Northern Iowa College of Business Administration, West Hills Community College in Coalinga, Calif., Ohio Northern University and George Washington.

That poorly written paragraph could be interpreted to imply that these schools, including ONU, are clients for EduMetry's Virtual TA service. Or, the paragraph could be taken at face value (i.e, taking "among EduMetry's dozen clients" as a clue) and infer that these are schools that have been EduMetry Clients, but not necessarily clients for EduMetry's Virtual TA service.

ONU contracted with EduMetry's D-Cube service to facilitate development of rubrics to operationalize ONU's new general education learning outcomes. I worked closely with EduMetry in 2008-2009 in my role as co-chair of ONU's General Education Implementation committee.  Thanks to the power of EduMetry's web-based D-Cube collaboration system, faculty teams efficiently developed the general education rubrics that have been adopted for application starting Fall 2011, when the ONU's new General Education program is deployed. (Details about ONU's General Education program, and the rubrics themselves, are available here.)

Given the alternate interpretations of the paragraph in TheStar, I spoke with Chandru Rajam, EduMetry's Co-Founder and CEO, on May 4, 2010. In that phone conversation, Chandru expressed his frustration with the article. While thankful for the PR it provided for EduMetry's newest venture, he was concerned about how the paragraph quoted above portrays EduMetry's clients.  Specifically, he expressed his regret that Lesley Ciarula Taylor, the article's author, conflated EduMetry's Virtual TA clients with clients for other EduMetry services. Chandru expressed his concern over any misunderstandings the article might create. Our conversation then shifted to discussing the cultural forces buffeting EduMetry's Virtual TA service.

Those who have recently discovered TheStar article now have the facts: ONU is not an EduMetry Virtual TA client.  It is your responsibility, not the University's responsibility, to spread the facts. You have an ethical obligation to use your personal networks to set the record straight.

URoomSurf's Questionable Marketing Tactics

uRoomSurf.com offers a roommate matching service targeted to high school students anticipating their freshman year in college and college students. The concept behind uRoomSurf is a sound one that has the potential to deliver value to room-mate seeking students. This post by Brad at BlueFuego tipped me off to uRoomSurf.

I'm less enthusiastic about uRoomSurf's marketing tactics. Justin Gaither volunteered to me during a phone call today that uRoomSurf has tasked an intern with creating Facebook groups using this naming template:

University Name Here Class of 2014.

This naming convention, designed to deliver near-top listing in search results, intentionally creates the impression that the group is affiliated with the university. uRoomSurf us leveraging university brand awareness to create awareness of their service. In my opinion, this marketing tactic is unethical. It may also infringe on the institution's trade mark.

Yesterday, I tweeted:

Is Uroomsurf.com a scam? The anonymity of who is behind it fails the sniff test. I'd avoid. More background: http://bit.ly/8eDxNB

This morning, I received a phone call from:

JUSTIN GAITHER – CO-FOUNDER
Justin is the other Co-Founder of URoomSurf.com. Justin is a Class of 2008 alumnus of the University of Miami, graduating with a BBA in Finance with a minor in Marketing. While at the University of Miami, Justin served on the undergraduate student government executive board as Treasurer. Justin is a member of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, does not like bugs, and is really good at basketball!

Justin was curious why I had concerns about uRoomSurf.com. I explained to Justin that I have no issue with uRoomSurf.com. However, I do have serious concerns with their marketing tactics.

Justin's primary responses to my expressed concerns about the ethics of creating Facebook groups with university names were: "But it works" or "I don't see an issue."

I suggested to Justin that contacting universities first, before using their name, might head off a lot of potential grief later. Justin dismissed this approach with, "we talked to some people who tried that, and it didn't work." Exactly! Schools aren't thrilled by organizations seeking to leverage the university's brand equity.

Justin also asked my opinion on uRoomSurf joining organic "class of" groups and pimping uRoomSurf via those platforms. I have fewer concerns about this approach, assuming (a) it is appropriate given the rules governing the FB group and (2) it is made crystal clear that uRoomSurf is unaffiliated with the institution in question.

To his credit, Justin did offer to take down the "Ohio Northern University Class of 2014" Facebook group created by a uRoomSurf.com intern. I just checked and it appears that Justin acted on his promise and removed the group. Thank you, Justin!

Caution: Ostrich Posturing can be Hazardous to Your Future

A colleague, reflecting on this NYT article about a recently published meta-analysis of studies examining the effectiveness of online and blended courses, observed:

But I don't think we should worry about online education being an adequate substitute for more traditional forms.  That is.......yet.

Prompted me to respond as follows:

I find interesting that the NYT chose to characterize the study's findings so positively. Perhaps the reporter read the abstract only?  For example, the study authors observe:

"the observed advantage for online learning in general, and blended learning conditions in particular, is not necessarily rooted in the media used per se and may reflect differences in content, pedagogy and learning time."

The study authors also observe:

"the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction."

One might take away from this that student time-on-task is the central factor driving differences observed in the meta-analysis; that online and blended (online combined with face-to-face meetings) expands student time on task. It would seem that any tool that expands the time students spend working with course material would be beneficial to the educational process.

Not addressed by the study is my hunch (yes, pure speculation) that on-line and blended course delivery requires that learning outcomes be specified with greater clarity than may be the norm for face-to-face classes. We know from the Brightman workshop that measureable student learning increases in parallel with the specificity of the learning outcomes communicated to students.

Overall, my take away is that the study suggests that course delivery method -- online, face-to-face, or blended -- is a comparatively minor factor in learning effectiveness. The study findings suggest that, from the perspective of student learning, online delivery is a viable substitute for and alternative to, face-to-face the delivery channel.

Following the classic path of a disruptive innovation, online and blended delivery bring to the table and leverage an attribute on which face-to-face instruction cannot compete. That attribute is convenience. Like it or not, students regard courses as commodities.  Given a choice between commodities, consumers will choose the more convenient alternative. Indeed, convenience can trump better performance (as witnessed when you take a photo with your phone rather than a dedicated camera). Are our course offerings competitively convenient?

For digital natives – i.e., our current and future students -- online learning is a traditional form. Online delivery is non-traditional only from the perspective of digital immigrants (i.e., those of us old enough to have lived BC … where BC could be interpreted as Before Calculators and/or Before personal Computers). Bowling Green just opened a new middle school.  The school is designed for distance learning. This is the norm, not an exception. Imagine the expectations those digital natives will have when they come to college!

We in higher ed ignore these market dynamics at great peril.

The Conceit of General Education

Mention General Education to university or college faculty and watch the reaction. Many will wrinkle their noses.  Some will look puzzled. Others, especially those enmeshed in the day to day delivery of GenEd courses, will exhale an exasperated sigh. Still others may say something to the effect of, "not part of my watch."  Each reaction reflects deep fissures in the gen ed dream. The reactions also reflect differing perspectives on ownership and responsibility. Mostly, reactions to 'general education' reflect deep seated, often unrecognized or unexpressed, assumptions about how a university education 'ought to be.'

Faculty reactions to general education typically reflect 'what I think' or 'how gen ed impacts my department.' Infrequently do faculty view gen ed from the student's perspective.  A distinction between 'general education' and disciplinary studies may make sense to faculty.  Students, in contrast, see an entire program of study; "a list of requirements that stand between me and my degree," if you will.Some requirements make sense. Other requirements, requirements that often fall into the 'gen ed' category, elicit puzzlement ("why do I need a course in ...?). As Bok points out in Our Under Achieving Colleges, students tend to not make the connection between program elements; between gen ed courses and other parts of their program of study. This failure reflects shortcomings in program design and delivery. This disconnect is a lost opportunity.

The conceit of general education, as traditionally practiced and conceptualized is the belief that it is a free-standing part of a student's university or college education.  This belief yields general education curriculum that is separate from, independent of, and possibly competing with developing a disciplinary foundation.  This mind-set fosters development of gen-ed fiefdoms that silo general education learning from the balance of a student's experience and education. The partitioning is evident in "layer cake" or "parallel column" curriculum design models. It is a model that risks reifying disciplinary silos rather than optimizing a student's progress toward cultivating general education objectives.

Adopting Nichols' view of liberal education as the collaboration and integration of general education offers an alternate model that disintermediates the conceit. A collaboration model emphasizes integration rather than separation. A collaboration model encourages forming partnerships among faculty from across a campus directed toward a common purpose.   

Our students should, and deserve to, experience and understand their college program as a unified holistic integrated entity in which the interfaces between general education, core curriculum, and major are seamless and mutually reinforcing. Rope provides a useful, although imperfect, metaphor.  Rope is perceived holistically. It's rope.  Yet, rooe is made of individual yarns. Each yearn runs the full length of the rope and, compared to the rope, has little strength.  Each yarn makes a modest contribution to the strength of the rope. A yarn, working in collaboration with many other yarns throughout the length of the rope, yields synergies in that the resulting rope is stronger than would be expected given the individual yarns.  .

This collaborative model requires helping students build a cognitive framework for understanding their program holistically, of the pieces that make of the program of study, and of their interconnections.  Collaboration should be viewed as extending the duration of a student's program; not confined to a particular temporal sliver. Accomplishing this requires careful curriculum design and cultivating in students the cognitive framework necessary for understanding of the whole and the parts from which it is made. If successful, the contributions of each curriculum component to the totality of the program of study should be apparent to every student in the program. If successful, students will perceive the resulting curriculum as a seamless experience. If successful, the resulting educational experience will be of greater value than can be achieved by partitioning general education from the balance of a student's program.