I'm not very satisfied with this section. I'd suggest
rewriting it -- I'd even volunteer to do it once we have
reached consensus on what should be included.
So far the recommendations boil down to 1) market to our
alums; 2) market to our potential undergraduates.
Under 1) -- I don't see any real difference among the three
"models" listed under "lifelong education programs" except
for the PR. I suggest that they all be collected under one
heading. I think we could add substantially more "meat" in
the way of possible structure: a) distance enrollment in
web-mounted or web/video based courses for some kind of
"credit"; b) combinations of web and (interactive) video
tools to supplement on-campus periods as part of a "second
professional degree program". [I know that Chris, Ed
Crawley and others are already embarked on developing
options like this.]; c) "Alumnae/i College" sorts of
programs -- (similar to those run at many other
universities) combining short, intense on-campus periods
(1-2 weeks in the summer) with web-and/or-video based
material both before and after. The object being to provide
quick introductions to new ideas and technologies.
Under 2) This needs very careful thinking-through. What
would be attractive to high-school students? Which
students? Would we market material to individuals or to
schools? Who at MIT would take responsibility for thinking
about this? Is this something for Ron Latanisian's K/12
Council? Do we have a comparative advantage (because of name
recognition & expertise) in this area?
In my weaker moments I actually get excited about the
possibilities that MIT could have a significant impact
on the quality of high-school science (and engineering)
education and make money along the way. But this one won't
happen unless someone steps up or is commissioned to do it.
Other ideas/programs--
-> We don't mention more traditional distance learning on
the video conference paradigm -- e.g. regularly scheduled
lectures/seminars by MIT faculty in on-campus studios with
interactive video links to remote sites, supplemented by
internet links which would include teaching tools, on-line
TAs, etc. Are we against this? Do we think this should
studied? By whom?
-> What about the evolution of academic computing?
We spent a lot of time talking about Athena's virtues and
problems and comparing it with another model in which all
students buy computers and software packages upon entering
MIT and communicate with each other and a smaller number of
perhaps more specialized servers over the net. What
happened to this idea? Shouldn't some group be thinking
about or planning for this possible watershed shift in the
computing/commincations paradigm on campus?
We seem to feel that there are some direction in which MIT
**should not** proceed. For example, we did not think that
MIT had any "comparative advantage" offering correspondence
courses over the internet -- in the fashion of the Open
University. It is important that we list the things we
have considered doing and rejected, and that we explain
why. This may save others unnecessary effort later.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Long-Range Recommendations
The recommendations on this page will require further study
to verify feasibility, and then more than a year for
implementation. Other pages contain short-range and
medium-range recommendations.
The Committee recommends that MIT monitor carefully trends
in advanced technologies, which both offer opportunities
and present risks. Most of the ideas cited below are based
on the use of advanced technologies to assist distance
education.
Advanced technologies may permit innovative lifelong
education programs for our own alumni/ae. Three models
suggest what might be done. 1. Several industries offer
extended warranties or technical assistance, and make money
doing so. In our case we might serve the needs of our
graduates at the time they perceive those needs. We would
be in a good position to deliver such services because we
would understand each student's educational background. 2.
We might offer wetware upgrades to our graduates, to update
the technical ideas they have in their minds. The analogy
is to the software industry, which regularly issues
software upgrades and invites their customers to buy the
latest version. In our case, the updates could incorporate
advances in technology and generally serve as refresher
experiences. 3. Another metaphor is the Health Maintenance
Organization. In our case, an Educational Maintenance
Organization approach might emphasize preventing
obsolescence as well as introducing graduates to new ideas
and new skills. Any of these models leads changes how we
think of our students, from a customer during an intense 4
or 5 year period, to that of a partner in education, with a
relationship lasting through the end of the person's
career. Other new educational markets are possible. For
example, the brightest high school juniors and seniors
("nerds in training") might be offered freshman-level
courses in, for example, calculus, computer skills, or
molecular biology. (As a result of this experience, many
might decide to apply to MIT; in evaluating their
applications we would know about their performance in these
courses.) A potential risk is misjudging the competition.
The use of advanced technologies for distance education
will probably become well understood, probably by us at MIT
and certainly by others. We might find ourselves competing
on price with other universities in courses like our
freshman subjects. Or, on the other hand, we might
capitalize on MIT's name recognition to market education
programs for the large number of students who are qualified
for MIT but whom we cannot admit for lack of space.
We recommend that a faculty committee be formed
specifically to develop some realistic scenerios for use in
long-range planning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Table of Contents. Your comments on this report are
welcome. Rev. Mar 21, 1995.