Last week, a group of five professors at MIT released a white paper summarizing their ideas for a new type of university, an idea intended to inspire dialog if not immediately garner support. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is one of the world’s leading research universities. So what is their angle here? Why MIT? Why know? And why might this matter? Great questions. Let’s take a deeper look.
MIT has long been regarded as one of the world’s leading technological research universities. In recent decades, they have leveraged their reputation, their location, and their ability to generate resources (through research grants, philanthropy, and corporate partnerships) to broaden both their programming and their reputation for excellence to reflect more of what might see at a comprehensive research university like Harvard of Stanford (private) or Michigan or Berkeley (public). They have explored and invested in new and emerging disciplines between the traditional disciplines, relying heavily on transdisciplinary teaching and research, and helped to create significant new companies and university-industry partnerships that have quickly become among the most successful in the nation, if not the world. They attract the best students and the best faculty and some of the most significant donor funding across the entire Institute, in STEM and far beyond.
In other words, MIT is exceedingly well positioned to speak from a position of knowledge, success, broad and deep expertise, innovation, and both industry and global partnerships. They are a juggernaut. What they may lack in broad understanding and appreciation (or even knowledge) of the full higher education landscape in the US, they make up for in both impact and the ability to invest in growth/emerging areas and take risks. Typically, these investments have benefitted (in addition to MIT) partner institutions that are comparable in many ways to MIT, and of course stakeholders in the form of corporate partners or investors. But this report by five MIT faculty from a wide range of disciplines is aimed differently.
The white paper details guidelines (and guideposts) for the formation of an “affordable new educational institution” unlike MIT and unlike any others in the US presently. It draws on elements of all forms of higher educational institutions (research universities, teaching-focused institutions, community and technical colleges), on proven hallmarks (e.g., co-op and internship experiences), and on emerging concepts that many are talking about but only a few universities have successfully implemented at scale to-date (e.g., stackable credentials, shared or co-listed classes across a cohort of universities, partnering with employers).
In describing their “alternate model for baccalaureate education,” the five MIT faculty members offer key levers to address three specific challenges higher education has been facing for decades, and upon which the global pandemic shined a bright light and, in some cases, exacerbated: rising tuition costs (access and affordability), ballooning debt (financial sustainability), and concerns about preparedness for the workforce (value and ROI).
The key features of their proposal are intriguing if not entirely novel. The authors begin by positing a university focused on undergraduate majors in computer science and business, eventually expanding to include engineering and design. (This is not dissimilar to nearby Olin College, an experiment about to enter its third decade but whose story is still unfolding.) But it’s not all about STEM and business. Indeed, it positions both as critically dependent on a much more fulsome education (including “substantive classes in the humanities and social sciences, thoughtfully integrated into the curriculum”) that prepares students to think critically and engage effectively with their world.
Features of their proposed “New Educational Institution” (NEI) include:
Changing the balance of teaching and research. Faculty will split time between teaching (80%) and research or practice (20%) and promotions will focus primarily on teaching. This is big difference from faculty at research universities who are likely to have a more even split between teaching and research, or even favor research. Keeping pace with new pedagogical approaches, pedagogical innovations, and development of new pedagogy will also be expectations of faculty. Faculty will also be expected take sabbaticals at industry and other partner organizations.
Rethinking curriculum and delivery. The authors propose widespread use of the flipped classroom model with online material drawn from several sources, including partner institutions.
Holistic curricula. Beyond skills and knowledge, students must understand context and implications. They must be able to work on increasingly complex (and ill-defined) problems in an increasingly complex (and interconnected) world. The curriculum therefore includes “substantive classes in the humanities (including arts) and social sciences” that are integrated into the overall curriculum.
Stacking of themed micro-credentials. Majors and minors are reimagined as a series of micro-credentials that can be stacked to form the undergraduate degree. This allows greater customization, flexibility, and portability for students. The course bundles forming the micro-credential will be team taught by faculty from contributing disciplines.
A trimester model and focus on experiential education. The academic calendar consists of three trimesters (fall, spring, and summer) of equal length. Cooperative education will be central to the NEI curriculum. Co-ops will be carefully curated and overseen by the NEI to ensure value to the student and the partner or sponsoring organization. Students spend 4 of the 11 required trimesters in co-op programs.
Embrace modern, capital-efficient approaches to campus infrastructure. Leverage partners’ facilities (not only their instructional capabilities), partner more closely with community-based facilities and organizations (libraries, museums, clinical or research labs, companies). Eschew the campus ‘niceties’ (e.g., climbing walls and lazy rivers) that have become all the rage – and part of the arms race – at many traditional campuses. Focus instead on “pedagogy, students, and outcomes.”
The five MIT faculty members who co-authored this latest white paper to reimagine the baccalaureate institution hope that it becomes a starting point for discussion. And that discussion is needed. But so, too, is getting the right people at the table. Not just the elite privates or the major research universities, but also those universities more directly serving their communities and states, as well as liberal arts colleges, community colleges, and technical colleges. The authors have done a commendable job identifying and assembling some of the proven high-impact practices each of these types of higher educational institutions can offer. Now let’s see if the broad audience necessary for uptake and advancement of these (and other) ideas is extended an invitation to the discussion, and if they choose to accept.
For more latest Education News Click Here