DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education

This book examines the cost of a college education, the need for a college education and the areas where colleges and students may save money in the future. And, while I agree with much of what the author discusses, I believe she left out a few important points about getting a reasonably priced education and there are some flaws in her future vision for higher education.While the author states that she does not believe that college is for everyone, she then goes on to contradict her point of view by giving examples of the higher earnings potential for college graduates. I agree that college is not for everyone and that we should not be pushing the idea of college off onto every student, making them feel like a failure if they do not go to college. I also believe that targeted career education in high school would keep more students in school and have them prepared, if the chose not to go to college, to go into the work force or a 2 year school career school. I came to this conclusion based on work with a high school where I live that has an abysmal graduation rate. Many of the students have no interest in furthering their education beyond high school, see no reason to be learning what is being taught, and so they drop out. Targeted career education would give students the ability to relate to the material and understand its value. Sadly, the college for all crowd has done serious damage to career education in high school.I also disagree with the argument presented in the book that education is unaffordable to many. I have watched carefully the students my daughter graduated from high school with. The vast majority applied to in-state public colleges because they have been brainwashed by guidance counselors that these are the best bargain and that going out of state would be cost prohibitive. In my daughter's case, she applied to 8 colleges that ranged from Ivy League to in-state public colleges. She was accepted at all with the exception of the Ivy, which offered her guaranteed admission if she waited a year and applied using early decision. She chose not to wait, so that fell through. After being accepted to 7 colleges, it was a wait and see game based on aid amounts. Surprisingly, the colleges that had been most pursing her offered the lowest aid packages. Two schools actually offered only unsubsidized loans as the only option. Others came it a varying rates. The last school aid package to arrive was from a Seven Sisters school and they offered a near full ride (97% of all costs). In addition a prestigious public university in another state offered her a very attractive package. The in-state university offered about 50% off of tuition with no assistance for room and board, books and other costs. The point I am making is that very few students seem to shop for the best value. Had my daughter only applied to the public in state schools, she would be getting buried in debt, where as by shopping she should get out after 4 years with much less in loans than a new car costs.Finally, the author makes a point of electronic education as a way to save money looking forward. While there is some validity to that, I know a number of college students that do not want to use electronic books or learn from a computer. The technology just isn't far enough along for them to be comfortable learning from the internet and other electronic learning aids. This may change, but currently it is not a realistic expectation for many students.I actually enjoyed the book and the insights the author provided. I think it is of some value, particularly to high school educators, students and parents who have children trying to make a decision about their futures.

Question: If I complete my general physics and mathematics studies using freely available MIT OpenCourseWare content on my own time, computer science study on campus at ASU Polytechnic, and general education requirements at UoP, all for a degree program at Berkeley, what's wrong with that? After all, as long as I can demonstrate the competancies outlined in its program of study, isn't this effectively more-or-less the equivalent of the Berkeley-delivered version costing possibly 10x more in total? Good for me... right? And if so, who cares?Answer: Hundreds of years of authoritative people vetted in an aggrandizing aristocracy of exclusionary education. That's who.Universities best interests are not necessarily aligned with those of students, and as DIY U explores, the differences can be disheartening to the point of infuriating. Given a long-established tradition of prestigue through extreme selectivity and absurd financial requirements, it is understandable that many universities are struggling to find their way in the Information age.I enjoy looking at political issues though numbers, statistics, historical analysis, and really any sort of empirical evidence lending insight to the world around us. With regards to education, it is obvious that we have yet to fully realize how Internet-enabled technologies fundamentally change how we should perceive learning, and due to the explosive growth of exploratory online systems it is critical we define realistic paths to evolve traditional, costly, centralized, campus-oriented, course-based university programs to the increasingly decentralized, affordable, online, multi-national, outcome-based demands being pushed by current generations of students. DIY U investigates this gap using historical evidence, anecdote, current statistics, and critical analysis: exactly the type of writing I look for in subject matter of high debate.Of particular interest to me are the many statistics on past, current, and projected future costs of higher education. Not that this should be shocking, but the gist is that the current model just isn't going to work if we really want to positively improve the general education level of the American population. (And I think the whole world would nod in violent support of this goal.) Simply using federal subsidies to (attempt to) expand an already antiquated model of education would be outright foolish.I also particularly enjoyed the sections on different paradigms actively being used to varying degrees of success, specifically outcome and competency assessment-based learning. I've attended four higher-ed schools to date, and find the requirements of having to take specific course line numbers at a specific college for a specific degree program within a single university in the 21st century to be unacceptably, and quite literally, "old school". As someone who's said "I could have tested out of that class" numerous times, the concept makes sense to me.If you find these topics interesting, by all means pick up copy of DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. I purchased my Kindle version for about $10 on Amazon.

Great read! Very relevant to the future of education. Very resourceful.

Anya Kamenetz s'est fait connaître pour avoir, la première dénoncé dans un livre (Generation Debt: How Our Future Was Sold Out for Student Loans, Bad Jobs, NoBenefits, and Tax Cuts for Rich Geezers--And How to Fight Back), l'endettement colossal des étudiants sur lequel repose l'industrie de l'enseignement supérieur américain. L'endettement des étudiants américains représente aujourd'hui 830 milliards de $ dépassant l'encours total des cartes de crédit aux USA.Dans ce nouveau livre récemment paru (avril 2010), Anya s'attaque au modèle des universités américaines dont elle démontre que son avenir est plus qu'incertain du fait de la crise et des coûts croissants du système, machine à exclure de la société américaine.En premier lieu, elle démontre que les taux d'abandon au niveau du bachelor (4 premières années) sont en moyenne de 44% et que l'abandon se produit dans les deux premières années. Quand on se lamente sur le système français, on devrait mettre en prespective notre taux d'échec avec celui des USA! Le seul point de différence est le fait que l'abandon s'explique essentiellement par des raisons économiques liées à l'endettement des étudiants. La dette d'un étudiant ne peut être incluse dans une faillite personnelle et donc reste exigible tout au long de la vie ! De l'autre côté la dette est garantie par l'Etat aux bailleurs (mécanisme de type Fannie Mae)!Beau système qui rappelle de loin le système des subprimes!Là où le modèle est en danger, c'est que les étudaints acceptent cet endettement car ils espèrent que leur niveau de revenus futurs sera supérieur grâce à leur diplôme. Mais la crise est là et le taux de chômage atteint les 10%, éloignant d'autant cette perspective de gains supérieurs. D'où une interrogation majeure sur la viabilité du système qui exclut encore les minorités hispano et afro. Celles-ci étant orientées vers les community college et les vocational colleges. Pour les USA, l'enjeu est de taille, ils ont régressé à la 7éme place quant au taux de scolarisation dans l'enseignemnt supérieur alors qu'ils ont été première pendant de très nombreuses années.L'analyse de l'augmentation des coûts de l'enseignement supérieur est édifiante. Les augmentations ne sont jamais liées à la pédagogie, l'enseignement ou la recherche, mais aux services sur le campus (cantine bio, stade foot gigantesque, équipe de sport, mur d'escalade, nouveaux bâitments, piscine, salles de sport, etc...) Ces frais supplémentaires ont conduit les états à augmenter les niveaux de bourse, augmentant d'autant l'endettement possible des étudiants.Bref, le système est à bout de souffle !Une des solutions proposées par Anya Kamenetz est une réingénierie totale de l'université grâce aux technologies de l'information afin d'abaisser considérablement les coûts opérationnels. C'est là où l'ouvrage est moins convaincant, voir décevant car il est approximatif et l'auteur ne maîtrise guères son sujet contrairement à l'analyse économique de cette industrie. C'est dommage car cela amoindrit quelque peu la portée de son argumentation.Cependant, elle ouvre des voies vers de nouveaux modèles de transmission de la connaissance, beaucoup plus centrée sur les besoins des individus, plus individualisés. Elle montre comment le secteur privé aux USA s'est largement emparé de ces outils pour développer une offre de formation que les States Universities n'offrent pas. Elle indique également, que beaucoup de venture capitalists s'intéressent beaucoup aux start-ups liées au domaine de l'éducation.

No es lo que esperaba es más un tipo manual no profundiza.