Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nothing
I wonder what the relationship is, if any, between the quality of the education delivered, and the peer review system. Like, if a bunch of new providers delivering online learning spring up to disrupt traditional delivery, but they don't require their employees to be participating in publication that goes through the peer review process, will the quality of the teaching suffer?
Also, NZQA requires educational institutions to meet certain standards in order for their certifications to be recognised by NZQA, does that make it substantially harder to disrupt education?
|
Don't assume that the newcomers will attempt to get around statutory requirements. If one of the Big Five partners with a tertiary institution, it will tackle it like any other disruption opportunity. Apple-UCLA (or Microsoft-University of Washington or Amazon-Harvard or Google-Stanford or Facebook-Oxford or whatever) will meet its government obligations and will aim to be the best computer-assisted tertiary education in the history of the world. It'll have the financial resources and technical expertise of one of the world's most powerful companies and the educational cred of a top university. It will be in competition with every expensive tertiary institution in the world and it will be better than all of them. Every person in the world willing to pay for a tertiary education will be its target market. It will offer a better education backed up by analytics that
prove it's better and it will become a premium brand overnight.
Everything that happens with market competition and actual performance analysis will happen to education - the teachers and administrators that are actually great will become superstars and will get paid accordingly and the useless deadwood will take early retirement. Schools will compete for the best teaching talent like sports teams fight over the best athletes. The schools that can afford the great teachers will become brands like Liverpool and McLaren F1 and the Lakers. The schools that are just good might stay afloat by being cheap alternatives for students who can't afford to go to one of the Big Five partner institutions, and niche providers to a specialist market (like music conservatories) might stick around. Average and shitty schools will burn.
(note:I know these ideas are not my own, pretty sure I've lifted them from NYU's Professor Scott Galloway)