a Strategy for Argosy University (online) to establish in Indonesia [8 of 10]

Addendum (to: a Strategy for Argosy University (online) to establish in Indonesia)



Ivy’s Online (?)

Abstract

The paper explores a synergy of readymades , leading to the conjecture how the online paradigm may evolve, with implications for the Ivy League, among others.



Introduction

This could just as easily be entitled: Let’s Build Us a College. With Mark Zuckerberg (born 1984), a seeming overnight multi-billionaire with Facebook, over what essentially began as a cyber yearbook of students; one might imagine niches of entrepreneurs chomping at the bit to eclipse Facebook; and ironically why not with the remake entirely of the school itself?

Let us begin with, if only symbolically, a benchmark of excellence. The Ivy’s (Princeton, U Penn, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale & Columbia) may have been distinguished of themselves before a sports conference appellation accentuated a separation above and beyond other schools, indeed they are all still excellent schools, yet it is arguable that they comprise the absolute best eight schools in every way. UCLA, New College, MIT and many more, are debatably as good or better, especially when weighing comparative departments. Such a thought yields two noticing: the cache is formidable, if only from a marketing perspective and that there is no franchise on the absolute best.

Much has changed in higher education since the mid 1950’s, when a sports conference conferred the holy yoke of Ivy League. One can safely characterize US education generally by a consistent and graphic decline. The more recent twin advents of the for profit franchise phenomenon and the online paradigm each bring with them unique pros and cons.





For Profit

Pros

Plug and play business models, franchises, become very attractive to many. No one wants to reinvent if unnecessary. This will be the comment here on what is established wisdom.



Cons

Oversight is often loose, even sparse (despite well meaning). Those in positions of authority regularly begin to accrete their own little kingdoms. Where there are no unions, for example, faculty become highly disposable (dismissed on a regular basis for reasons having nothing to do with performance; to cover the chair so as not to deal with an unfounded student complaint, a bruised President’s ego, etc.). There is no institution that does follow through as to why talented faculty drop away; the value is simply lost.

Much else can fall through the cracks when at some distance from the mother ship. Textbooks not arriving until after the course has begun, schedules being changed last minute (to the enormous disruption of the student’s family that just rearranged an accommodating schedule that will now have to yet rearrange again). These are just a few of the seeming innumerable issues. The reasons for such nonsense coincides with the little kingdoms concept, subtleties get away from decision makers and then they scramble last minute plugging holes, often at the expense of student and/or faculty.

No one wants to micromanage, yet macro management is certainly not without its own failings (for better or worse, this becomes another argument for online centralization).





Online

Pros

More and more we are seeing the satellite of schools offering their complete catalog online, while coming up short from campus to campus on ground classes. One of the issues the creation of this addresses is the consistency from one campus to another; i.e., if you take a basic course in the Adobe Creative Suite in Baltimore it may or may not include Dreamweaver, though if transferring to the same school elsewhere, having had the course, it might be presumed such material was covered. Online, regardless where you are, that is all an understandable presumption (though this remains a presumption, it certainly cuts down the odds).

Certain functionality can become absolute in given aspects. To the previous consideration, quizzes can be set up by the corporate center to be revealed, be taken, graded and disappear automatically across a period, alleviating some of the instructors effort (and furthering consistency).

Going further is moot here; the paradigm is good business (which is the other main reason). It collapses costs, controls, overhead, etc.



Cons

Perhaps the best place to start is exactly where we will explore further; at this time online seems hardly ready for prime time.

One of the most valuable things students pay for (though most do not make a direct connection) is the value of networking. There is a huge difference between physically interacting, going to lunch with and watching spontaneous interactions with your contemporaries, and simply exchanging posts. This writer experienced an online class where there was a proactive attempt made to simply capture basic data (such as e-mail, phone number, city, etc. – with networking straightforwardly expressed) and was ignored by some. This alone is an extraordinary loss.

As just referred to, the wealth of non-verbal communication is lost. Even when web conferencing occurs, the capacity to manipulate remains.

The writer also recalls teaching an online class, where the institution did not require attendance at the time of class, those students received attendance as long as they retrieved the class in archives. Without exception, no one ever showed up for class … eleven weeks unfolded with recordings being made to the monitor (the writer gracefully excused himself from that employ shortly thereafter). Of itself, the ability to record all and store in archive has its uses; though arguably this is not one of them.