University Wire, March 8, 2005, Tuesday

Copyright 2005 Cornell Daily Sun via U-Wire
University Wire

March 8, 2005 Tuesday

SECTION: COLUMN

HEADLINE: Ivy Leagues and the online-degree roulette

BYLINE: By Shaffique Adam, Cornell Daily Sun; SOURCE: Cornell U.

DATELINE: ITHACA, N.Y.

BODY:
Many interesting people come to the Alice Cook House. Last week it was Ralph Terkowitz '72, who introduces himself as a failed chemist. But don't let that fool you, Mr. Terkowitz has had a successful career in technology and has been a vice-president and later the CIO of the Washington Post company. He was visiting Ithaca as a judge for the annual Business Idea Competition, and spent much of his time mingling with students and describing the world of high-risk investment. "My investment strategy is easy," argued Mr. Terkowitz persuasively. "You can only lose 100 percent of your money." By this he meant that while the most you can lose is your initial capital, successful investments can double, or even quadruple, your principle. This allows for an investment strategy that deals in risky and innovative ideas. So long as half of the innovations succeed, you can write off the other half and still bring home a good return. This attitude is not just about investment, but about life itself.
The concept is simple. Try a whole bunch of radical and innovative ideas on how best to solve any problem, and eventually one of them will succeed and bring on a paradigm shift that will transform our lives; just like cell phones and online shopping did in the last decade. Mr. Terkowitz believes that the high-risk philosophy should even apply to education and universities, which is why the Washington Post invested in Kaplan to explore innovative methods in teaching. One of his companies uses Artificial Intelligence to analyze resumes and provide job placement; and he sees second-tier universities being out-competed by "anytime, anywhere" fully online degree programs like those offered by the University of Phoenix and Concord School of Law.
Some proponents of online education take this concept even further, arguing that Ivy Leagues are nothing but "name branding" in the teaching business. And there is no incentive for top schools to innovate or make radical changes to their traditional program, thereby gambling their reputations on a roulette wheel. On the other hand, generic online schools have nothing to lose, and are driven by competition to try innovative strategies. Supporters of the high-risk philosophy argue that statistically, some of these strategies will succeed and bring about a paradigm shift that will collapse the traditional education structure. They even cite the high number of Ivy League students who pay for the services of Kaplan to prepare for standardized tests, suggesting that these new innovative education strategies actually have something to offer that students cannot get at a traditional university.
Actually, I think the proponents of the online education are dead wrong. The Cornell degree is not about the piece of paper at the end of the day, but it is about the experiences, social and professional networks and exploration into the world of ideas that transforms the student into a responsible citizen of the world. It is about close interaction with one's peers and with leading academics and thinkers; it is about travel abroad and residential living and learning; it is about challenging the question instead of clicking on one of the multiple choice answers; and it is about initiative and innovation.
There is plenty of innovation at Cornell. For example, this Semester at Alice Cook House we experimented with the idea of having student-initiated courses for credit. The idea is simple: students come together and decide what they want to learn, design the course themselves, then take the course and get credit for it. Stanford University, as an initiative of their student government, has been doing this for a number of years (see: http://assu.stanford.edu/sic/), so why not try this at Cornell?
It was decided that the best structure would be a one-unit discussion seminar under the faculty direction of Andrew Bass. About 20 students showed up at the first meeting of "Brainstorms" to decide on topics and which guests to invite to facilitate the discussion. For example, students wanted a discussion on the value of the Cornell degree. An ILR student suggested Prof. Ron Ehrenberg, an expert on higher education, to lead the discussion. The group agreed, and the student took charge of contacting the professor and making all the arrangements.
In similar fashion, all the slots were filled with discussion leaders who include world-famous intellectuals: Isaac Kramnick, government professor and vice-provost for undergraduate education will lead a discussion on God and the Constitution; Philip McMichael, chair of rural and developmental sociology was picked for the American role in global development; Eve Tominey from the Center for Learning and Teaching will discuss successful teaching methods; and Mike Behe, an advocate of Intelligent Design from Lehigh University, will talk to the group on May 4 before a public lecture at the Alice Cook House.
There was even talk of perhaps bringing back Mr. Terkowitz to discuss his ideas on technology, innovation and the future of higher education. The most important facet of this seminar is that all speaker choices and logistics were done by the students themselves, resulting in a unique and exciting discussion group. This kind of learning is at the apex of innovative teaching and is already happening at top-tier universities.
If education was just about getting good test scores, then sure, putting out the most radical and innovative ideas on the roulette wheel will bring out the best methods; but for more complex and open-ended goals like building character and expanding the mind, we need to move beyond the investment strategy ideas that shaped the high tech boom and burst.
(C) 2005 Cornell Daily Sun via U-WIRE