talkingDigital

by Adam Cochran

I worked in radio during the transition from CDs, carts, and LPs to computer automated programming and music traffic. My job was to sleep on the floor of the studio and listen for the alarm to indicate dead air. At which point, I was to wake-up and type a couple of commands into the prompt to restart the software. – D.J.s protested but maintained that people wouldn’t listen to an automated radio station. Most radio stations are now completely automated. If they have live on-air people, it is generally only during drive times.

I worked for the Walmart empire as Amazon.com and eBay were just beginning to appear as viable retail options. Walmart was one of the few retailers that didn’t scoff at the concept of people buying the day-to-day necessities online.

I was a photographer during the transition from film to digital. I spent a lot of time defending my switch and even lost friends over it. I was constantly told that digital photography wasn’t real photography. The issue split the local camera club. Now they all shoot with digital cameras and don’t like to talk about the historic rift.

I was working in newspapers and magazines as a writer, editor, graphic artist and photographer while experimenting on the side with blogs and websites. This is a battle that continues and newspapers haven’t lost the war, but they have lost many battles.

Perhaps it’s the fact that I enjoy being on the cutting edge or perhaps it’s my age that has always placed me in a given industry just as it is being altered or replaced by a digital disruptive innovation. Whatever the reason, I enjoy it and it made me a student of the phenomenon before my fellow Mormon, Clayton Christensen, coined the phrase “Disruptive Innovation.”

I am an Instructor at Colorado Mesa University and I love it. I am in my element in the classroom and my students will back me up when I argue that my success as an instructor is centered around my experience in the field.

The education industry was a little late to the digital game, but I would argue that viable online education alternatives would not have been possible before the ubiquitous availability of  broadband and cloud resources.

In each of the examples above, the industry was not killed off by its digital or online counterpart. What killed (or almost killed) the industry was its own refusal to accept that its product or business model was obsolete and/or that innovation was a threat. Whether or not a company, industry or organization accepts change often determines whether it’s still around 5-10 years after the disruption. This is why you can’t buy a film camera, but you can still buy a vinyl LP or why magazines are booming and newspapers are struggling.

Here are five reasons why higher education is doomed to go the way of the CD, newspaper and film camera – IF it does not adapt:

1. Academia despises industrial professionalism and experience

What is the purpose of an institution of higher education? Is it to help students find their way in life? To provide training and development that will allow students to acquire meaningful employment and improve their world?

Or, is the purpose of the institution to acquire grants, recruit from more affluent demographics, and perpetuate academia?

The problem is that most (read ALL) higher education institutions proclaim their mission is the former, but their day-to-day model (and measurement of success) is usually based on the latter.

In an attempt to appear more scholarly, institutions are now requiring all tenure faculty to have a terminal degree (PhD in most cases, a master’s does not qualify). Not a bad idea, if you are all about academics, but what about the professional who spent 30 years in the field rather than seeking a PhD? How does the value of this professor compare to the one who spent 15 years as a student?

Assuming that the instructor was hired because he/she can effectively teach, the individual will have to settle for less than $50,000 for a full time salary, even if their industry pays multiples of that amount. If the instructor spends the money and time to acquire a PhD, then he/she may be able to start around $65,000, as long as he/she is willing to put in more than 40 hours a week and lots of service and scholarship time. Which brings me to my second point.

2. Cost

Most schools project that the cost of a three-year PhD to be around $60,000 from their institution. This number assumes that the student has a means of paying for shelter, food, clothing, and other family living expenses – in other words, a spouse with a high salary. Many, if not most, PhD students borrow most or all of the costs of living and school. This amount is generally around $150,000 though some borrow two or three times that amount.

Add to this the cost of a Master’s ($40,000+ total loan amount) and a Bachelor’s ($60,000-200,000). But why would anyone borrow $400,000 or more for a PhD? Hint: it has nothing to do with scholarship.

Students do not have to pay back school loans if they are students. Therefore, many solid students opt to continue with schooling to avoid paying back school loans. The theory is that their salary will catch-up to their debt.

At the end of 10 years or so, a student has racked up $400,000 in debt, has little to no field experience (maybe an internship here or there), and now needs to make $2500 per month just to pay off the student loans within 30 years. If they want to pay off the loans faster than that, then the pay needs to be significantly higher. If the student does not have a working spouse, then the monthly pay needs to at least double.

Where do you find an entry-level job that pays $60,000?

3. Terrible faculty pay –  compared to equivalent industry jobs

Imagine two potential employees, both received a B.A. from the same institution. Each went a different direction after receiving his/her diploma.

Medical school aside, which path brings higher pay and a better employee?

A. The employee who spends 7-10 years after B.A. earning degrees (and lots of school debt).

B. The employee with a B.A. and then works his/her way up through the ranks of an industry for 7-10 years?

Which of the two makes a better instructor? Which makes a more relevant instructor? Which would students prefer to learn from? Which instructor would most likely help students develop real world skills?

Now, the big question, which person earns a higher salary? Which person does the industry consider to be more competent? Which person would you want to teach your son or daughter?

Most institutions of higher education would prevent the second candidate from qualifying for any significant faculty position within the institution. And the pay will almost always be a fraction of what the industry is offering for the same experience. Meanwhile, a PhD will most likely over qualify the candidate for anything less than the highest company positions (which usually require at least as many years experience).

4. Higher education may be an idiocracy

Perhaps this is an assumption, but it would make business sense that employers may not be interested in paying a top salary to a PhD with little to no field experience (see No. 2).

Q. Where do you find an entry-level gig that requires a PhD but does not require any actual experience in the given industry?
A. Higher education.

It’s all the rage now for colleges to make the big name change from college to university. And with the name change comes new accreditation expectations/requirements that professors hold a PhD. Professorships are booming, luckily there is also a growing candidate pool. Freshly graduated PhD recipients are looking for jobs that will recognize their credentials and help them pay-off loans.

The old guard, professors who spent years in both academia and the field (back when a PhD was $10,000), are leaving and the new guard is taking their place. These are young progressive minds who have no idea what the real world is like. And they are teaching those who will be seeking industry jobs 4 years later (unless they go to graduate school).

Eventually, employers will catch-on. Many of them already have caught-on. The relevance of generic degrees will likely be replaced by industry certifications, specialized training, and high demands for perfection in job candidates. Some MOOC enthusiasts theorize that the value of your education will be more associated with who your instructors were than where your degree came from.

The new guard that sets the standards for academia in quality will continue to place research and scholarly merits above real-world contributions and those that earn a living in the industry will scoff at those who hold degrees – especially advanced degrees.

5. Currently, degrees only offer perceived value

While certain degrees do provide training and exposure to the given field, it is a false correlation to assume that degrees equal more in-depth exposure or expertise on a topic than what one would gain by working on a major project in the industry for the same amount of time. Generally it only means that the student received some exposure to the theory and practice of the industry in addition to 30-some credit hours of required gen-ed courses.

Although a graduate project may be widely praised by academics or take best-of-show at a scholarly conference, outside of landmark studies in the business or medical field, it’s difficult to cite a doctoral or master’s thesis/research project that is worth anything to the actual industry of its subject.

There is still time to save higher education

Higher education is not broken by nature. Real education has real value. Specialized training, practice in a venue that allows one to learn from mistakes, and guided instruction on relevant industry topics are all important to prepare a student for the real world.

Academic progress and scholarly achievement are absolutely possible without sacrificing real world relevance, formal education is not obsolete. However, the current trend is to replace real world relevance with pretend standards of academic success and scholarly achievement that are only recognized and bestowed by the tenured faculty who write said standards. Generally these people are unknown to the industry outside of the occasional scholarly publication or board of directors.

UN POINT Á NOTER: This post was written during my stay in a Holiday Inn Express.

Related articles

• What Can You Do With a Humanities Ph.D., Anyway?
• Research Outcome: Professors work long hours, spend much of day in meetings, and tuition increases aren’t because faculty are getting raises
• Why Graduate Teaching Assistantships Should Be Scrapped
• Employment rates for STEM Ph.D.s are down or stagnant across the board
• The Higher Ed Bubble Is Very, Very Real