Would you send your children to Bill Gates U?
Kevin Carey thinks Bill Gates ought to start his own university. Carey’s reasoning goes like this: first, we all agree that higher education is broken and needs to be fixed; second, in working with primary and secondary schools, Gates and his team discovered that they had “less success trying to change an existing school than helping to create a new school”; colleges and universities are harder to change than primary and secondary schools; therefore starting from scratch is the best way to go.
By and large, I’m not convinced. For one thing, I don't think Carey has seriously considered what is involved — in infrastructure, in organization, in hiring, etc. — in creating a brand new college or university. For another thing, I’m inclined to think that schools that have recently lost 30% or more of their endowments are likely to be far more receptive than they once would have been to demands for change — if those demands come from someone who is willing and able to pay for major changes.
But more important, I don't think Carey has thought through what he wants this university to be. Even if we grant that the traditional models of higher education are broken, a new model won't be less broken just because it is new. Carey says that Gates can “prove that newer, better ways are possible,” and he thinks that that would be pretty easy — or at least “easier in higher education” than in secondary education. Okay, so whatcha got?
“What would Gates University look like? To start, it would look like something. It wouldn't be wholly virtual. A university needs a physical center, a beating heart, a place where students and teachers come together and learn.” Well . . . okay. But that’s not new, of course.
“Admission to Gates U., the place, would be selective — but without the bribery and latent classism that still stain our so-called best colleges.” Sounds good. What will be the criteria for admission? Will they be different than at existing schools?
“Who would work at Gates University? Anyone who could do a great job. Maybe professors will have Ph.D.'s, maybe they won't. If a really smart person drops out of college, founds a phenomenally successful business, and decides to turn toward education as a way of giving back, he or she would be welcome to apply for a job. You, [Bill Gates,] for example, would be qualified to teach at Gates U.” Let’s ignore the sucking-up here and ask: What would being “phenomenally successful” in business qualify you to teach? Would it depend on the business? Who would make these decisions? What criteria will you use to determine “who could do a great job”? Would Mark Cuban be a good candidate for a professorship at Gates U? Would he want a job there?
“There would be no tenure, obviously. I assume you never thought it was a good idea at Microsoft — why have it here?” Sounds good to me. But of course higher ed. seems to be headed in that direction already. . . .
"Nor would you sequester faculty members into departments organized around academic disciplines. The world can get by without one more English department or college of business. Gates's programs would cross traditional disciplines, organized around goals for what students need to learn.” Okay. So, what do students need to learn? That’s a pretty big question, isn't it? — maybe the biggest of them all? And who will be answering that question?
More specifically: if there is no English department, will there be English processors? Will anyone teach writing? Literature? Or anything else that’s currently taught in existing universities? If not, what would they teach? If there wouldn't be a “college of business,” but there would be business people on the faculty teaching (I would assume) courses involving business, then how precisely would that differ from current business courses in existing universities?
“How would you grant credits at Gates University? You wouldn't. At least not the way colleges normally do, based on time in contact with professors. No credit hours at Gates U., no degrees based on the number of years enrolled. Instead you'd describe in great, public detail all of the knowledge, skills, and attributes that students pursuing a given course of studies would need to acquire. You'd be very open about how you teach those things and how you assess what students have learned. Then you'd grant credentials when students met those academic standards — regardless of how long it takes.” Again: what would the standards be? What “knowledge, skills, and attributes” are students supposed to acquire while at Gates U? Presumably they would be different than those pursued at other institutions, but in what ways? If there are no departments or schools, how could there be “a given course of studies”?
I just can't find any substance at all in Carey’s article. Is this a real proposal, a real argument, or just an elaborately circumlocutious attempt to flatter Bill Gates?
In any case, we already have too many universities and too many people attending them. I’d like to see the Gates Foundation provide incentives for the consolidation and restructuring (financially and academically) of some under-performing colleges. Radical change is not likely to happen in institutions that are succeeding, more or less, in their current incarnation; but what if the Gates Foundation could throw its resources into creative experimentation with failing or floundering institutions? Then we might see some changes that work, changes that more prominent schools could then be induced to imitate.
Presumably you start the kids here and then I don’t know what Gates has to add.
— Sanjay · Jul 8, 07:33 PM · #
Here’s an idea for a place I call “Reason U”:
Pricing is per class, and is based on the percentage of bad grades versus good grades – the easier the course, as measured by the grades given, the higher the price. And a percentage of the cost is rebated to students based on their relative grade position – bottom 50 pct get zero rebate, top 5 pct get 90 pct rebate, with some scale between. And professors get a share of revenue from fees.
Set it up with open enrollment and let the faculty decide what they want to teach.
Each professor would need to figure out what courses would attract students, as well as how hard to make the course and how tough to grade so as to maximize their revenue share. Too tough and the price will drop too much, reducing revenue per student; too easy and the price will rise too much, and you’ll lose too many students to make up the difference.
I predict you’d see fewer pure gut classes, because most students wouldn’t pay top-dollar for a gut; but you also wouldn’t see brutal grading in courses that students didn’t see as critical, because you wouldn’t want to screw up your GPA for a course that was a throwaway. So you’d see many more courses in areas students really felt they needed to learn – where they’d be willing to take the risk of a lower grade or pay a higher price.
Students, meanwhile, would have an incentive to compete hard in those courses for their rebate. (Rich kids, of course, could afford to take all guts and slack off, just like in real life.)
Obviously, this model works better for some subjects than others; in particular, how research gets funded is a real question, as is the whole financial aid question. (Would fees need to be scaled to need? Or would that cause the whole system to break down?)
But take it for what it is, a brainstorm, a starting point. Would you teach at a place like this, Professor Jacobs?
— Noah Millman · Jul 8, 07:58 PM · #
I’m probably too sensitive about it since I made my own way, but your title bugs me almost as much as the old “Would you send your kids off to war?”
The rest of the post is really good though!
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 8, 08:22 PM · #
Noah, I am attracted to some aspects of your proposal, but I fear that it would make grades even more central to the academic culture than they are already. On the other hand, it would have the effect of transforming grades from a commodity into a currency, and that could be beneficial . . . You see my ambivalence. I’ll need to think about it more.
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 8, 09:27 PM · #
I agree with almost everything you have to say here, Alan. But I wouldn’t be upset to see arguably the greatest philanthropist in the history of the world give it a go.
— Freddie · Jul 8, 09:45 PM · #
I’m with you, Freddie! — I’d just like to see someone write a serious proposal for what Gates U would be like. Hell, I might write one myself.
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 8, 09:57 PM · #
I’m with Freddie; let him try. You know, pedagogy is actually something that people study, and we’ve learned a lot about how people learn; but what I’ve always found interesting is how uninterested professors seem to be in state-of-the-art pedagogy. Not flash-in-the-pan teaching fads, but metacognitive strategies with real, proven results. A university based on application of pedagogical research in the classroom? Sure, why not have one, at least?
— Chet · Jul 8, 10:01 PM · #
A Gates U has been a wish of mine for a very long time, simply because he’s the only person who can create a university that would match Harvard’s endowment (and therefore attractiveness) overnight. Carey’s ideas seem a little clichéd and hackneyed to me, but I’ve long given very much thought to what the ideal university would look like (having been repeatedly screwed by the higher ed system), and Gates would definitely give that a ton of boost.
Just because Carey’s vision of Gates U doesn’t seem nice to you, doesn’t mean Gates U in itself is a good idea.
— PEG · Jul 8, 11:10 PM · #
Funny no mention of someone who is a certified conservative who’s actually done what you dream of here: Tom Monaghan. Put up a cool quarter of a billion and bought himself a Catholic University, Ave Maria U. in south Florida.
— JohnMcC · Jul 8, 11:26 PM · #
Monaghan isn’t really the same. Beyond the town and the law school controversy, Ave Maria is a pretty conventional Catholic liberal arts university. The “what would this look like” question is more interesting with someone like Gates—even if you think that pedagogy is something the Greeks knew more about than we’ll every know.
— Tony · Jul 9, 12:11 AM · #
I would sooner give my 8 year old cousin a loaded gun than have Bill Gates anywhere near liberal arts education. He got lucky on one good idea, and used some shady business dealings to create an empire. He’s significant only in the way Rockefeller and Ford were significant, not in the way Shakespeare and Jane Austen were significant.
— Bert · Jul 9, 02:19 AM · #
Wow, a lotta cynicism in this thread. God knows the higher ed. system needs some fresh ideas, but positive reform rarely comes from such a negative beginning. Some people must have had very bad college experiences.
The thing conservatives hate most about universities, tenure, is slowing going away. But universities and professors will still be more liberal than the general population, so what will conservatives blame it on then?
— tgb1000 · Jul 9, 03:13 AM · #
You haven’t seen his solution to the Burnt Pancake Problem.
— Chet · Jul 9, 03:23 AM · #
I’m just having fun imagining Henry Ford U., or Ross Perot College.
— Matt Frost · Jul 9, 03:50 AM · #
If you’ve heard Gates present the rationale behind a majority of what the foundation does, the primary metric that guides him is how many lives they can save per dollar. His primary interest, I gather, is in putting money into things where people haven’t put serious money before (ie: rotavirus, malaria, water purification etc).
So if you want him to put serious money into this and make it a primary mission (as a serious investment would demand) you need to convince him and fit it into his moral intuitions which are rather focused on different matters..
— jackal · Jul 9, 05:32 AM · #
From where I sit, Bill Gates U sounds a lot like learning on the job, except that you’re not being paid for it.
— John Schwenkler · Jul 9, 01:56 PM · #
Alan – you say we have too many universities and too many people attending them. Could you elaborate? What would those “too many” do if not attend university? Isn’t the thrust of modern innovation and globalism the need to train a stronger, smarter workforce? Don’t we need more people than ever to attend college and get science degrees and become programmers, etc. etc. What’s the alternative here? (Not to say that many people attending college are lazy and simply not up to snuff, but really, what’s the alternative? The factories are all gone or going…)
— E.D. Kain · Jul 9, 03:08 PM · #
E. D., I should probably write another post answering your question, but for a start I could just say that I agree with this writer.
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 9, 07:16 PM · #
More people should read John Taylor Gatto.
— Julana · Jul 9, 09:21 PM · #
Reducing number and size of institutions is a good idea.
Should they aim at developing the potential of gifted students (a Mozart, a Pasteur, an Einstein), or should the aim to meet the needs of the market (society)?
I think there’s room to explore a model of apprenticeships of people who have succeeded in certain fields—assigning them students who have some combination of talent and motivation in their area of expertise.
— Julana · Jul 10, 08:11 PM · #
God knows the higher ed. system needs some fresh ideas, but positive reform rarely comes from such a negative beginning.
I question two parts of this.
1. I don’t think it’s fresh ideas that higher ed needs. There are some excellent, old ideas around, but they’re almost impossible to implement under the current system of student finance, to name just one factor that stands in the way.
2. I bet positive reform usually does come from a negative beginning.
— The Reticulator · Jul 12, 03:53 AM · #
You guys already have at least two examples of conservative start-ups: Liberty University and Oral Roberts University. There’s no such thing at those institutions as inconvenient facts or unorthodox theories. Banned from campus, like sex and alcohol.
Bottom line, it seems you think higher education needs reforming because it produces too many graduates who don’t think like you do. Thank God.
— Math Teacher · Jul 13, 03:14 AM · #