Comments on: What is the future for universities?

By: Graham Attwell

Graham Attwell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:54:40 +0000

Thanks Leigh for explaining the model you are using. I think the idea of people as a resource has been underrated in the past. I have no problems with the accreditation being dependent on having paid a fee – I suppose I feel a little less comfortable with levels of student support being dependent on ability to pay.

I would be very interested to hear of other models – is anyone out there busking.

By: Leigh Blackall

Leigh Blackall — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:15:34 +0000

Oh, and I forgot to mention, those 80 or so.. they are an incredibly powerful resource for the few that have formally enrolled.. I haven’t put a dollar figure to that

By: Leigh Blackall

Leigh Blackall — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:00:21 +0000

busker

By: Leigh Blackall

Leigh Blackall — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:59:58 +0000

Hi Graham,

In our case, this is how we think…

Our course attracts professionals who are usually already employed in some degree. In the past, and still now, those employers offer their employees professional development funding. People use that funding to enrol in and take our course. In the Facilitating Online Communities course you cite (which by the way is run by me in Otago Polytechnic for a partner institution in NZ called Manakau Institute of Technology. No Otago University there I’m afraid) we get a core number of people who formally enrol this way. This ensures the course goes ahead. Once that is confirmed, we offer it as open to anyone.

Now, why would people to continue to pay if it is open to anyone?

1. It doesn’t run unless we get a core number who commit to paying
2. Those who pay get intensive support (regular telephone calls, access to learning support services, formative and summative assessment services, and of course accreditation – which in our industry leads on to pay rises and promotions).

Those who don’t pay will follow along exactly the same content etc, but cannot expect intensive support or guarantee of service. They also will not be assessed or accredited.

My hope is that of the 80 or so people who have informally enrolled for free, that somewhere through the course they will see a reason to formally enroll. Whether it be to access more intensive support, or for the assessment and accreditation. It is up to me to build the reputation and status of the course to being world class – enough for people to see worth in having a piece of paper saying they took the course and did well at it. Of the 80 people, if we can get 8 to do that, we are sustainable.

If not, then I’ve often considered running these course like a street basker… you know, playing a banjo with my hat out taking ‘donations’.. I could run a ChipIn widget and take little sums of money from people based on how much they like my services… with 80-90 people in the audience, its bound to pay something!?…

By: Joan Vinall-Cox

Joan Vinall-Cox — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:18:17 +0000

Hi Graham,
I agree with your analysis of the situation, especially the question of what funding model is needed in the future. I wonder if the universities are ready to move from denial (“No use of Wikipedia for my high standards!”) to a recognition that they are in a whole new communication and learning world. I have a deep attachment to the learning I received through universities, and would like to see them move forward before they are made irrelevant.