Arizona State University President Michael Crow and NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman shared a stage at ASU + GSV in San Diego to discuss the future of higher education.
They addressed issues such as: What is the relevance of a degree in the information age? And in a world of rapid and significant social, economic, and technological change, what is the role of higher education in a complex, ever-changing knowledge landscape? Through his conversation, Crow explored the questions and discusses how Arizona State is evolving to meet new challenges.
On the relevance of a degree in the information age: “We’re moving away from the idea of step learning where college is one step on the learning ladder to the idea that learning happens across a person’s entire life. College should be available to more people, but it is only one learning pathway.”
On the future of science and math: “At some point, we decided that math and science were exotic and could be taught later to students. We turned it into a hard science and we made it uninteresting. We’ve done a bad job of teaching and connecting it to real life. We should have called it problem-solving instead of algebra. We got off on the wrong foot.”
On the role higher education can play in a wider, democratic world: “Democracies were always intended to be debatable, and universities have a responsibility to produce better teachers and leaders. We are redesigning our curriculum and rebuilding our structure in order to produce the next generation of leaders ready to serve. And we should talk to each other. A recent poll in Arizona showed that 75% of our state residents agree on the most important issues. We need to focus more on the positive things we agree on and move things forward.”
On the role of free speech on campus: “Colleges and universities are adamant about the protection of free speech. This means that everyone has the right to speak even if you are attacked from the left and the right. It is difficult to deal with outside influences intent on disrupting university life. One way is to make events student-only events; the students must agree to a code of conduct. Yet, people give money to outside agitators trying to disrupt and create controversy on campus—to make colleges a platform for disruption.”
On the role colleges can play as part of the battle for democracy: “We have partnered with Kyiv American University, and we’re looking to be part of further evolution of emerging democracies and economies. We’re creating learning tools and assets all over the world. We have refugee groups building university networks; a perpetual learning network for emerging African leaders. We have a tremendous responsibility to advance ideals of economic democracy.”
On the ability to manage the university and its programs around the world: “We amplify what we do through technology. We have 5,600 faculty and 25,000 support staff. Teaching, learning, discovery was previously concentrated on campus. Through our technology partners, we are able to evolve the university as more than just a place, but a force to project outward. We have five times the graduates than a few years ago, and fifty times the learners. Using technology helps us do what we do.”
On the transition to the new “how” and “what” for higher ed: “We’re not preparing people to do a job, but create environments to become master learners. We must empower the learning process for college students and for K–12. Students must understand that learning is a continuous, ongoing process. How do we enable learners to keep up with the rate of expansion of knowledge? We have to retool our curriculum and speed the process of learning.”
On the idea that degrees are out of date: “They’re not, but what is out is the notion that the degree is the be-all and end-all of college learning. It is informal and formal learning with measured outcomes. But the degree’s utility diminishes over time. It is a certification of learning at a particular time for a particular thing.”
On the idea of K–12 as a feeder system to college: “Most public schools suffer from simultaneous problems. There is no innovation in a stagnant model; micro-control; and a lack of respect for education in general. Either we want to have the most successful education system or we don’t. If we want it to be more important, then we have to elevate our attitudes toward education.”
On the educational ethics of technology tools: “Universities missed the boat on the social complexions of tech disruptions. We didn’t do those assessments on social media, for example, and now we have people generating false information to create specific outcomes. We need to take more responsibility for this.”
On what we’ll be talking about at ASU + GSV 2030: “We will be discussing learning assets and pathways for children to adults who want to keep learning, and we’ve figured out how to make learning work across society.”