There is growing recognition on even the most traditional college campuses that change is afoot, and not in the run-of-the-mill, change-is-the-only-constant way we are weary of discussing. Rather, the sense is that higher education is at something of a crossroads, with dramatic reinvention\u00a0the more appealing outcome and complete annihilation or worse, irrelevance,\u00a0the lesser. In other words, NBD\u2026<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the kind of identity crisis that I imagine has taken place in higher education before (or has it?), but perhaps never with such visibility or collective foresight that a critical turning point\u00a0in history is about to occur. Or rather, it\u2019s already occurring. As I\u2019ve written\u00a0elsewhere<\/span><\/a>, there is mounting evidence that what higher education is offering to its patrons is no longer to their satisfaction. The old model is too expensive, too linear, too impersonal and frankly, too useless. The demand for something new has been growing, I think, for the last decade.\u00a0At the same time, in the span of a half-generation, technology has become ubiquitous. So seamless is the gap between our\u00a0identities and our\u00a0technologies that we no longer conceive of them as separate, and this is all the more true for our students. Meanwhile, the systems, methods and philosophies that underlie higher education have been scrambling to keep pace.<\/p>\n What I wonder is whether, in the discomfort of\u00a0the larger shifts happening in higher ed, we have eagerly placed all our eggs in the technology basket as a sort of scapegoat solution. Have we conflated these two co-occurrences in such a way that has us feeling like we\u2019re addressing the issue without actually doing so?<\/p>\n On his\u00a0Inside Higher Ed blog this week<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0Josh Kim<\/span><\/a>\u00a0aligns the downfall of the Polaroid Corporation as a result of failing to evolve with the risk that higher ed\u00a0runs for doing the same. He explains that while Polaroid had a long\u00a0history of success, was willing to innovate and had developed new technologies\u00a0to meet the demands of the future, the company had not budged at its core. The spirit of evolution had not infiltrated deeply enough to reach its strategy or culture.<\/p>\n In higher education, we\u2019ve incorporated new technologies, but have used them in large part to cling to our old ways. As\u00a0Gardner Campbell<\/span><\/a>\u00a0explains in a\u00a0Q&A with Mary Grush<\/span><\/a>, the arrival of online learning and the learning management system have made it easier than ever to track student behavior, productivity and other easily measured forms of \u201clearning.\u201d Placing our measurement focus in these areas emphasizes the linear pathways, predictable structures and impersonal approach to education. So as we feel accomplished institutionally for changing with the times and implementing these new tools, we obscure our own view of the larger issue. As Kim says, investing in technology is not a substitute for evolving the culture.<\/p>\n Maybe we\u2019re pulling the technology lever as a stand-in for enacting real change because, well, change is hard. Our institutions are committed to who we\u2019ve always been, and much depends on continuing the status quo. But I am ever hopeful that real change is not only necessary, but increasingly possible; not only possible, but already begun. For every stick in the mud I see on my campus and beyond, I see counter examples of people applying their creativity, resilience and wisdom\u00a0to envision and create a different reality. I am part of\u00a0more and more conversations about shaking things up, and these conversations lead to real work, new initiatives and sometimes, institutional funding. And I am convinced that beneath the grueling layers of politics and bureaucracy that exist at every institution, there are\u00a0high-quality relationships<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and a commitment to the mission of teaching and learning that we can rally around.<\/p>\n