You can read a fine piece here about the future of MOOCs--massive open online class(es). The author, Clay Shirky, makes a persuasive case that just as MP3 files have replaced the CD, which had replaced vinyl albums, which had replaced wax cylinders (okay, Shirky didn't mention that step), which were the original virtual substitutes for the real thing--listening to live performances--so too mass higher education will ebb into oblivion. MOOCs, if done well, can be every bit as good as your average undergraduate lecture, and, like with MP3s, you don't need to buy the whole course when you want only one lecture. Unbundling, in other words.
Many might protest Shirky's conclusion by pointing to the goals of higher education--to provide well-rounded, educated citizens, from a secular point of view, or to equip students with "serviceable insights" from a distinctly Christian perspective. How could education by MOOC lead to either result? In short, Shirky argues, it can't. But that doesn't much matter because so little higher education currently achieves either of these laudable goals. Much of undergraduate higher (and, increasingly, graduate) education is, in my words, nothing more than a means of certification for the marketplace. Information, not knowledge, is the currency of the internet age. And wisdom? Who even remembers what wisdom is?
What about training in character, the current flavor of the day, at least among legal educators? How can one learn the qualities of professionalism from a MOOC? The answer is, again, one can't. Yet despite the clamors of the Carnegie Report, one can be forgiven for doubting (sadly) the long-term commitment of the market of the practicing bar (and financially strapped law students) to a goal that adds little to the immediate bottom line.
So what's the bottom line, at least as far as legal education goes? Not much change in the short term. Shirky's prognostications for the future of undergraduate education may be correct for many fields of study but those that require skills like counseling or teaching or elements of experience like the sciences will remain largely immune from displacement by MOOCs. It's also the case that legal education will continue with few changes, in part because of the accreditation requirements of the ABA, and in part because of the inherent demands of the practice of law. Passive learning has its limits.
What is of more concern for the future of law schools is the dearth of legal jobs. Check a post over at The Faculty Lounge here for a good explanation of why that is the principal problem facing law schools today. Some American law schools will (and indeed should) simply disappear unless they can demonstrate a clear and distinct reason for being and deliver value for the money. I continue to believe that Regent University School of Law fits both of those criteria. And I am confident that there will always be enough law students who seek both knowledge and wisdom to keep Regent going strong in spite of MOOC-ing.
Many might protest Shirky's conclusion by pointing to the goals of higher education--to provide well-rounded, educated citizens, from a secular point of view, or to equip students with "serviceable insights" from a distinctly Christian perspective. How could education by MOOC lead to either result? In short, Shirky argues, it can't. But that doesn't much matter because so little higher education currently achieves either of these laudable goals. Much of undergraduate higher (and, increasingly, graduate) education is, in my words, nothing more than a means of certification for the marketplace. Information, not knowledge, is the currency of the internet age. And wisdom? Who even remembers what wisdom is?
What about training in character, the current flavor of the day, at least among legal educators? How can one learn the qualities of professionalism from a MOOC? The answer is, again, one can't. Yet despite the clamors of the Carnegie Report, one can be forgiven for doubting (sadly) the long-term commitment of the market of the practicing bar (and financially strapped law students) to a goal that adds little to the immediate bottom line.
So what's the bottom line, at least as far as legal education goes? Not much change in the short term. Shirky's prognostications for the future of undergraduate education may be correct for many fields of study but those that require skills like counseling or teaching or elements of experience like the sciences will remain largely immune from displacement by MOOCs. It's also the case that legal education will continue with few changes, in part because of the accreditation requirements of the ABA, and in part because of the inherent demands of the practice of law. Passive learning has its limits.
What is of more concern for the future of law schools is the dearth of legal jobs. Check a post over at The Faculty Lounge here for a good explanation of why that is the principal problem facing law schools today. Some American law schools will (and indeed should) simply disappear unless they can demonstrate a clear and distinct reason for being and deliver value for the money. I continue to believe that Regent University School of Law fits both of those criteria. And I am confident that there will always be enough law students who seek both knowledge and wisdom to keep Regent going strong in spite of MOOC-ing.
No comments:
Post a Comment