While new communications technologies are likely to strengthen research, they will also weaken the traditional major institutions of learning, the universities. Instead of prospering with the new tools, many of the traditional functions of universities will be superseded, their financial base eroded, their technology replaced and their role in intellectual inquiry reduced. (Noam, 1995:247)
He outlines three main functions of universities: the creation of knowledge (research); the storage of knowledge (libraries); and the transmission of knowledge (teaching). He argues that the new communication technologies alter the economics of each of these functions, thereby undermining the role of the university. For instance, teaching will be undermined because, for the reasons mentioned above, online providers can offer cheaper alternatives. Noam claims that:
It is hard to imagine that the present low-tech lecture system will survive… If alternative instructional technologies and credentialing systems can be devised, there will be a migration away from classic campus based higher education. The tools for alternatives could be video servers with stored lectures by outstanding scholars, electronic access to interactive reading materials and study exercises, electronic interactivity with faculty and teaching assistants, hypertext books and new forms of experiencing knowledge, video-and computer-conferencing, and language translation programs. While it is true that the advantages of electronic forms of instruction have sometimes been absurdly exaggerated, the point is not that they are superior to face-to-face teaching (though the latter is often romanticized), but that they can be provided at dramatically lower cost. (Noam, 1995:248)
This does suggest an underlying model of education merely as information transfer, so again the idea that video lectures will make the face to face version redundant is proposed. However, Noam is arguing that it is not whether we think that this is a good form of education or not that is significant, but rather that it can be a much cheaper form which might be the deciding factor. There might be some truth in this,but students of such courses might soon find them unfulfilling.
The notion that the Net represents an infinite lecture hall, with no additional costs for additional students, is a mistaken one. I will discuss issues of scale in a later chapter, but in order to provide a meaningful educational experience, and one that is liable to be repeated by students, the provider needs to give guidance and support. So Noam argues that ‘a curriculum, once created, could be offered electronically not just to hundreds of students nearby but to tens of thousands around the world’ (Noam, 1995:248). While it is possible to offer such a course, if it is to be a meaningful education experience it will require a great deal of academic support, which many of the cheaper alternatives would not be able to supply.
What underlies much of Noam’s analysis is the physical aspect of universities. Much of their functionality is bundled with this physical realization. So universities were renowned for having a good library, or excellent laboratory facilities, or a pleasant campus—all physical attributes. As Noam points out, the very reason universities came into existence was because of this bundling of knowledge and its physical embodiment. When the early libraries stored knowledge in the form of books, the cost of reproducing books was high, so it
made financial sense for those people with an interest in a topic to congregate around these libraries. From this gathering of knowledgeable people universities grew, as others came to be taught by them.
Evans and Wurster (2000) argue that physical objects and information have different sets of economics. They have been forced to follow the same economic model, however, because they have been bound together physically. For example, in a supermarket the information about a product is in the product itself. If I want to look through the range of cereals offered I physically walk the aisle looking at the products themselves. The Internet allows these two aspects to become unbundled. I can browse through a vast collection of books at Amazon, while the actual books can be stored in an out-of-town warehouse.
In educational terms this can be seen as the campus versus distance education debate. Distance education has been implemented successfully before the advent of the Net, but it is with the Net that many universities and colleges have entered the distance education market. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of distance education courses and students over the past few years: for example from 1995 to 1998 there was an estimated 72 per cent increase in distance education programs in the US (Phipps and Merisotis, 2000). As with establishing private universities, the Net lowers the cost of entrance to this market. Delivering distance education used to require specially printed teaching materials, audio/visual components and a face to face network for support. These are costly to develop unless an institution is making a large-scale venture into distance education. The Net allows distance courses to be developed quickly and often on a small scale.
This ultimately leads to the question, ‘If all of the functionality of a university can be delivered at a distance, then is there the need for the expensive campus?’ In Evans and Wurster’s terms, if the separate information and physical economics are uncoupled, then they are free to follow their own paths. The ‘university’ no longer needs to have a large campus in the middle of a city. Instead it can have an administrative centre in a less expensive area without the need for halls of residence, lecture halls, libraries and so on.
Will all campus universities disappear, then? This depends on a wider social movement. In an interview published in Forbes, 27 February 1995, George Gilder predicted that information technologies would lead to the ‘death of cities’. His reasoning is much the same as I have outlined above—cities developed out of
economic necessity. Industry needed to be near a resource, such as a port, and then the people who worked in or offered services related to that industry needed to be in its close proximity. Now much of the work that people need to do in a knowledge economy can be done at a distance using the Net. There is less and less reason to be located physically near your employer (or even to have one single employer at all). Thus people will be free to live where they choose.
The reason I think this does not necessarily lead to the death of cities is that many people choose to live in them. Their nature might change, but cities have a social inertia, which is its own justification. The same can be said of the campus university. There is, after all, more to a university education than just the degree.
A university education is a social experience, often a pivotal one for students. As the former Open University Vice-Chancellor, Sir John Daniel (2000), commented,‘I often argue that university campuses will always be in demand because they create a protected environment where young people can come to terms with life, love, liquor and learning—while sparing the rest of the community the sight of these often unsightly processes’.
There is a lot of truth in this: most students will name the social aspect of university life as one of the most significant elements of their overall experience. However, if this is the only advantage large campus universities offer, then it might not be sufficient for the additional costs they entail. There are other ways of having a good time, after all: for instance, a year travelling the world might fulfil a similar function.
Read More : The Internet will mean the death of the campus university
