As students settle back on college campuses across the country, there’s a big question in the ether. With AI available to teach you anything anywhere anytime, is college still relevant?
David Deming and Tyler Cowen, among many others, have weighed into the debate with recent takes (here and here) that land for me, as they both center their argument around the stuff that I think mean that college could matter more, not less: experiences.
Whether late-night conversations, experiential learning, research, relationships with professors and peers, connections with alumni, and the chance to learn how to discern when knowledge applies and when it doesn’t, my take is that in an increasingly digital world, that total experience (whether in-person or online in fact) could become more valuable, not less.
Indeed, I’m not sure I can think of a time in the two decades that I’ve worked in education where I’ve been more optimistic about the potential value of college.
Yes, this echoes and builds on my argument from a couple weeks earlier that live, synchronous experiences will be more valuable in a world of abundant AI. It also centers on the reality that employers are increasingly requiring entry-level employees to have had real-world experiences before they enter a company or industry (whether that’s because of AI or remote work or both isn’t necessarily salient to this point) and that most people land their jobs through their network, meaning who they know.
Colleges can deliver those experiences. But it requires remembering that a college is more than the sum of its classes—and that many students don’t even enroll in a college for the classes per se.
The reasons students do enroll are far more complex and less centered on faculty than many professors—myself included—act like we believe; Bob Moesta and I documented the multi-faceted, nuanced reasons in our book Choosing College. And to be clear, yes, colleges must offer learning experiences. But viewing classes through the prism of the Kano model and our Jobs to Be Done research documented in Choosing College suggests to me that, in many circumstances, classes are “basic” features; they have to be there, but colleges don’t necessarily get credit for improving them.
But here’s the thing—too many colleges leave the experience part of the equation to chance. They need to be far more intentional about ensuring that every student has meaningful and distinct experiences, not leave it to luck nor let it simply mirror the generic experience that happens at “all the other universities like us.”
I’ve been reminded of that several times over the past few months: while delivering a keynote to many higher education leaders over the summer; watching one of my wife’s cousins recently trek off to Dartmouth for the beginning of his freshman year—and start the experience with a carefully cultivated outdoor trip; reflecting on the scope of Northeastern’s co-ops; and reading Deming’s address to freshmen where he talked about the steps Harvard is taking to “create more opportunities for [students] to socialize and learn from each other.”
The best organizations understand the Jobs to Be Done for why people “hire” them—with particular attention to the social and emotional dimensions of those Jobs, not just the functional elements—and then think carefully about what experiences they must provide to be sure to nail those Jobs. They design intentionally. Merely putting students in the same place doesn’t guarantee those experiences will happen. And they price according to the value they provide against a given Job to Be Done, not what their existing cost structure demands.
With that as backdrop, I’m reposting a piece I wrote last year at the beginning of the academic year about why higher education will thrive even as it gets disrupted. Enjoy it below.
Jeff Selingo and I have had an ongoing dialogue over the decade-plus I’ve known him about the future of higher education.
He argues that higher education—colleges and universities—will continue to play a critical role in society. Despite the threats from disruptive innovations alongside broader demographic, business model, and societal changes, colleges have navigated big changes and transitions before and will do so again, he says.
Meanwhile, I’m the disruptive innovation guy—not so blind that every problem looks like a nail requiring a hammer, but certainly prone to look for and get excited by the possibility. With many colleges not working nearly well enough for—and in some cases doing harm to—large numbers of individuals and society, my questions about the viability of some traditional colleges and universities and corresponding excitement about upstart learning providers makes it sound like I think Jeff is wrong.
Yet, I actually think Jeff is probably right. Although I think higher education is primed for disruption, he’s also likely correct that accredited colleges and universities may still play an important role in the nation’s future.
Here’s how to explain the paradox.
