Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail entitled “Education on the computer model: faster, more efficient, customized” written by Carleton University president Roseann O’Reilly Runte.
In this article, Runte declares how an increased focus on online applications and a shift away from students’ need to attend a specific campus is the future of higher education.
This restructuring is in perfect flow with the sentiment of modern universities being reduced to degree factories, run more like businesses than the institutions of knowledge they once were.
Online courses (I have taken a few myself) are valuable for parents involved in child care and those who learn more effectively through an online format.
But if their purpose is making education more accessible, why would it be replacing, rather than supplementing, our current programs?
It is consistently puzzling what context Runte is situating her opinions in, as she refers to smart phones being available at an accessible price and education as already being “inexpensive.”
Sure, some people are not driven too far into debt by their cell phone bills and tuition fees, but there are many more who are.
Runte seems to silently accept this by emphasizing the value of decreased costs for students.
Runte also agrees with students, perhaps unintentionally, when she cites the affordability of American state universities.
The cost savings should come from government and taxation, not from a detrimental restructuring of the university environment.
Runte states explicitly that fewer faculty members would be needed and more students would be depending on those remaining, or what our president refers to as “massive enrolment.”
Does it not logically follow that this would mean a loss of jobs for faculty, support staff, and other administrators, and a decreased quality of the professor-student relationship?
Though there is mention of how the online format will enrich the student experience, and create a faculty with “rock star status.”
I am calling her bluff.
A terrifying thought is that these developments may already be planned and invested in, and Runte’s article is simply a method of nudging the discourse to put digitized education in a positive light.
In her next column, I would appreciate it if Runte could speak to what will happen to our student unions, the social life of a campus, and the shared space that has historically espoused creativity and progressive thinking in higher education.
