You know that I'm intrigued by this vision, but see the potential of AI from a different angle. I think the current frame being pushed on higher ed by AI enthusiasts is that we can automate the machinery, which may very well break it or so reduce its value (intellectual and economic) that alternatives begin to appear.
The "one best system" of large urban school districts and state university systems may be breaking down, in part due to AI and part due to the withdrawal of state support, leaving the field to small, local experiments that grow like mushrooms after a good rain. Some of those mushrooms may utilize the latest digital cultural technology, but some of them may return to analog learning spaces and face-to-face engagement.
You give me hope! Do you see the big state systems breaking down? I don't yet, but I don't see how they continue. Yes to new local experiments and initiatives. Student-led, faculty-led, ideally!!
If there is reason for hope, it is of a decidedly Schumpeterian nature. Here is what I see:
In addition to the withdrawal of federal support, systems in Indiana and Ohio are under attack from their state legislatures. In other states run by Trumpists, we will see this same playbook, which will further reduce public support as measured by surveys and tax dollars.
CSU seems like it is imploding, and California has always been a harbinger for other state systems.
Importing tuition dollars from overseas has vanished overnight and is unlikely to return, which is a problem for every state flagship research university.
The best-case scenario, short-term, is that a recession hits and enrollment in tuition-driven programs increases. That may be a life preserver in a stormy sea, but there is no sign of the Coast Guard.
This is all speculative, of course, but look at what we know of how current budget cuts, reductions in funded Ph.D slots, and hiring freezes are stressing state systems today. Will it be better next year or the year after? It sure seems like we'll see some breakage over the next few years.
Your larger argument is that rationalization/radicalization in higher ed work as an integrated system, rather than as ambivalence or contradiction. On one hand, this makes a great deal of sense, and after encountering the argument, I can't unsee it. But on the other hand, it seems implausible when looking at any one constituency in higher education up close in the usual way: faculty are radical and eccentric, administrators are technocrats. This seems like common sense. And yet!
I wonder if we could map the rationalization/radicalization tendency across and within four different guilds in higher ed: faculty, admin (dean≤), student affairs, and governing boards. Each, in their own way, appears to specialize in one part over the other, but each also contains both halves of the whole within itself. The apparent conflicts between each of these is, in a way, a form of mutual mis-recognition and reinforcement.
You know that I'm intrigued by this vision, but see the potential of AI from a different angle. I think the current frame being pushed on higher ed by AI enthusiasts is that we can automate the machinery, which may very well break it or so reduce its value (intellectual and economic) that alternatives begin to appear.
The "one best system" of large urban school districts and state university systems may be breaking down, in part due to AI and part due to the withdrawal of state support, leaving the field to small, local experiments that grow like mushrooms after a good rain. Some of those mushrooms may utilize the latest digital cultural technology, but some of them may return to analog learning spaces and face-to-face engagement.
You give me hope! Do you see the big state systems breaking down? I don't yet, but I don't see how they continue. Yes to new local experiments and initiatives. Student-led, faculty-led, ideally!!
If there is reason for hope, it is of a decidedly Schumpeterian nature. Here is what I see:
In addition to the withdrawal of federal support, systems in Indiana and Ohio are under attack from their state legislatures. In other states run by Trumpists, we will see this same playbook, which will further reduce public support as measured by surveys and tax dollars.
CSU seems like it is imploding, and California has always been a harbinger for other state systems.
Importing tuition dollars from overseas has vanished overnight and is unlikely to return, which is a problem for every state flagship research university.
The best-case scenario, short-term, is that a recession hits and enrollment in tuition-driven programs increases. That may be a life preserver in a stormy sea, but there is no sign of the Coast Guard.
This is all speculative, of course, but look at what we know of how current budget cuts, reductions in funded Ph.D slots, and hiring freezes are stressing state systems today. Will it be better next year or the year after? It sure seems like we'll see some breakage over the next few years.
Your larger argument is that rationalization/radicalization in higher ed work as an integrated system, rather than as ambivalence or contradiction. On one hand, this makes a great deal of sense, and after encountering the argument, I can't unsee it. But on the other hand, it seems implausible when looking at any one constituency in higher education up close in the usual way: faculty are radical and eccentric, administrators are technocrats. This seems like common sense. And yet!
I wonder if we could map the rationalization/radicalization tendency across and within four different guilds in higher ed: faculty, admin (dean≤), student affairs, and governing boards. Each, in their own way, appears to specialize in one part over the other, but each also contains both halves of the whole within itself. The apparent conflicts between each of these is, in a way, a form of mutual mis-recognition and reinforcement.