Can Abundant Universities Reduce Inequalities Without Putting More People Out of Work?
In week 10 of the Critical Issues in Digital Education course, we are encouraged to reflect on the educational inequalities within our context and how these might be (at least partially) resolved or potentially further aggravated by educational technology. We are asked to consider a variety of resources on social class as well as on the ideas of how educational technology might make universities more accessible to diverse audiences. For this week’s post, I choose to focus on the latter and argue that approaching educational technology adoption by universities from the point of view of social justice and diversity, in my opinion, is the most effective way for both EdTech companies and higher education institution as it can help both of them to improve but should still be approached with caution.
Smith (2023) makes a very interesting argument in his book and subsequent interviews that I think is worth considering when discussing a possible transformation of higher education by educational technology: that the current university model is essentially that of scarcity based on three factors – (1) availability of classroom seats, (2) faculty presence, (3) student credentials. He then argues that this model is the main cause of the shortcomings that higher education is often blamed for, namely for amplifying socioeconomic inequalities.
Source: https://youtu.be/34UbISWn2m4?si=VSpl1zXB4LOMV7H4
While Smith’s examples of how this manifests in terms of price increases for a degree or student profile remain mostly US-centric, it is definitely the argument worth considering. Even if we are just considering the decrease in mobility in the US alone over the course of the last decades (Cherry et al, 2017) and the role higher education institutions play in reproducing these effects, we have to admit that there might indeed be a systemic problem with the model of scarcity in higher education. What Smith (2023) suggests might be a solution is embracing the model of “abundant university” where technology is leveraged to open access to all three areas (classroom seats, faculty presence, credentials) and thus to welcome more diversity within the higher education system as well as graduates for companies to employ.
On one hand, I can see how approaching technology adoption in higher ed from this perspective might help institutions to be more open and optimistic towards it. Seeing technology not as a disruptor of your current business model and, hence, a threat to us but as a means to advance our mission of opening opportunities to more graduates would be more widely accepted by higher education professionals. One example of an institution that utilizes technology to advance its mission of inclusion and openness that I can think of is Open University which cites technology as one of the means to achieve this mission.
Source: https://youtu.be/34UbISWn2m4?si=VSpl1zXB4LOMV7H4
On another hand, it is also important to be cautious about what having “abundant universities” would do to other systems, namely job markets. Whether having abundant access to degrees will not put more current graduates’ jobs at risk and cause mass unemployment cannot be predicted and can only be tested by gradually implementing abundant models and adapting them based on the results. Degree inflation is another potential risk we might be facing as a consequence of this putting more people in education out of work or further aggravating the work conditions of teachers. Finally, we cannot forget that the role of education is not only preparing people for jobs, and hence it’s important to ask how we make sure that abundant universities also continue to support the functions of socialization and subjectification.
All in all, I believe Smith’s (2023) argument that approaching educational technology adoption by higher education institutions from the point of view of inclusion and diversity is worth considering and exploring further as this might be a more effective way of approaching the topic than others we considered this semester such as personalization, efficiency, etc. However, while doing so, I believe it is still important to remain critical and continue engaging in the conversation on whether EdTech would not be doing more harm than good in improving the socioeconomic conditions of all parties involved nor putting democratic systems at risk instead of buying into the narrative tech optimism and its inevitability. While abundant universities present an opportunity for diversity, they also present a potential risk of the devaluation of education as well as causing potential unintended consequences to the job market and democratic institutions.
References
- Chetty, R. et al.(2017), “The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940.” Science356,398-406.DOI:10.1126/science.aal4617
- Smith, M.D. (2023), “The Abundant University”, The MIT Press
2 replies to “Can Abundant Universities Reduce Inequalities Without Putting More People Out of Work?”
Leave a reply
Hi there, Marta!
Thanks for this fantastic blog post. I always enjoy reading you.
Your recent blog posts are well crafted in terms of structure, and you use all of the affordances of the blog post as media. You also include hyperlinks, relevant videos, and more. So, “Vamos al grano” – that’s a Colombian idiom to express that we want to directly address the concerned issue – and let’s check the content.
This week’s task was a speculative task by nature. You were asked to envision a (future) university – an abundant university – that reduced inequalities while protecting labour. Did you know the Centre of Digital Education has done a similar speculative work? You can check out their future archetypes here: https://www.de.ed.ac.uk/news/higher-education-futures-8-scenarios-8-tarot-cards-and-8-short-stories. I believe that Michael D. Smith’s future is a combination of “Extreme unbundling” and “Justice-Driven Innovation”. Maybe the balance pulls more towards the unbundling future, but that’s my opinion.
Thanks for pointing out the US-centric context of Michael Smith’s argument. I think that is an important idea to have in mind while assessing his arguments. How are things in your country (Switzerland)? Are universities leaning towards a neoliberal model like the US, or are they a public good that guarantees educational equity?
Returning to your blog post, you argue that “approaching educational technology adoption by universities from the point of view of social justice and diversity is the most effective way for both EdTech companies and higher education institution”. But, in your blog post, you don’t actually engage with what it would be like to engage with social justice and diversity when integrating edtech. I would like to read more about your speculations on this aspect. To inspire yourself, you could explore the future archetypes of the DE Centre.
Another important thing to remember is to engage with this week’s reading. In this case, it was Bourdieu’s social theory. How do you live habitus, field, and capital in your educational system and life? How can your experience inform your speculation on what an abundant university might look like? Please expand more your ideas in your next blog post.
In my case, in Colombia we have a problem with our educational system. Scholars (see: https://www.dejusticia.org/publication/educacion-y-clases-sociales-en-colombia-un-estudio-sobre-apartheid-educativo/) have shown that only 2% of rural students access to any type of higher education. Because of this and other factors, they claim that our educational system is an educational apartheid. We might say that Bourdieu’s theory also applies to my context, as the educational system is a way to reproduce class and inequity.
Keep up the excellent effort!
Hi Nicolás,
Thank you so much for sharing the link to DE speculative scenarios!
I have used speculative methods for research in the past and find them incredibly helpful when engaging with certain issues. Will definitely read on more about the DE work in this area.
In Switzerland, I do believe the agenda of higher education is not as far on neoliberal spectrum compared to the US. It is a very small country and both federal and cantonal governments engage have a lot more power over what goes on in higher education. That said, it is by no means a utopia and as any capitalist economy, we are far from being immune to any of the issues discussed on this course, including that of access and inclusion.
I’m afraid this was my last post on this course. Which is too bad because I really enjoyed writing them and getting your feedback! I am now working on my final assignment and will be in touch this week about it.
Best,
Marta