I'm in a nursing program at the moment. This semester, it required five days in person (3 lecture, 2 clinical at hospital). The thing is, the program was usually four days in person, Tue-Fri. They would have four to five hour lecture on Friday. This semester, they split that into 3 hours Friday, 2 hours Monday.

We literally went to school on Mondays for functionally 90 minutes of lecture that very, very easily could have been a Zoom meeting. Particularly for students with commutes of over an hour each way. It's just power point slides about the textbook.

The director of the program specifically said, "We wanted to do it this way, because nursing is a person-to-person profession, and students need to be person-to-person as well."

So they didn't need to stretch the week to five days for logistical purposes. They did it to promote connection.

Yeah, my classmates rioted when they found that one out.

We're back to four days a week next semester.

I get the director's point, I do. And I don't live very far from school, so I couldn't care less. But many of these people are programmed to be isolative because of technology. It's not necessarily that school doesn't promote connection. It's that students are coming in not wanting that. And when you make them interact in ways they view as unnecessary, they get real, real cranky about it.

You can enlist as many counselors, social researchers, and activities administrators as you want, but if the students want no part of it, you're just throwing money down the drain. The problem seems to be that kids are arriving at college pre-programmed by technology and social media in such a way that community and cohesion are not things that exist in their world. It would be interesting to see how a college could try mandating that. But these are, by then, adults. And adults get spiky when you tell them they have to participate in ancillary activities. See: Any superfluous work meeting ever.

It's definitely a pickle. But I think this is a "Technology is changing people's social brains" thing. Unless you root that out - starting in childhood - all this is risking pissing money into the wind.

I think he is embracing AI as a replacement for in-class learning. And so is saying that all that is left for colleges to sell is the extended childhood / summer camp atmosphere / place to meet your future spouse / let's all go to the football game parts of the experience.

He is saying redesign the experience with AI and the job market in mind because if students aren't willing to pay for the degree alone then find out what are willing to pay for. It is "customer value model" thinking.

And I'm not opposed to the attempt at all.

But there's also some history of universities spending a lot of money on these things without changing much. All it's done is spike tuition and fees to little tangible educational benefit. It just sounds more like a business decision for the institution rather than addressing "How do we not turn out generations of people who haven't learned much?"

The degree factory model has mostly been to society's detriment, IMO. Particularly when accompanied by the amount of debt generated without significant benefit. So, hey, give anything a try that's different at this point.

But I fall a little on the pessimistic side. How students behave is symptomatic of a larger problem with technology that neither schools, parents, nor politicians seem prepared to address. No one wants to be the bad guy on social media, so we're still in this kind of Wild West phase with children's brains. And it's . . . going as expected.

As usual, this tenured professor at an R1 institution fails to even SEE the liberal arts and teach colleges across this country.

The title of this needs to be "Research focused Universities Oversold THEIR education system. Now they need to look at all the other institutions of higher learning they looked down on and see what they are doing right to form connections."

Ivory tower asshole.

You said the same thing in fewer words.

Or any of the other athletic programs.

Students would create their own communities and build friendships that last beyond college. Sometimes they would actually get some studying done.

You don't need "professional experience designers" - you need funding to create affordable on-campus housing.

Went to college nearly 50 years ago and have lifelong friends just because our dorm rooms were in proximity to each other.

Some of his other points are valid, however, I would like to POINT OUT that

COMMUNITY COLLEGES have been teaching focused all along.
I have taken courses at both community colleges (several of them) and also at an R1 university.

Community colleges are vastly superior for the student in almost every way.
The only thing they don't have is highly specialized course materials / labs, etc.

We also foster COMMUNITY in our colleges: there are numerous clubs and activities going on all the time.
I'm the faculty advisor of our anime club.
We have a holiday sing-along (open to all and the public) this Thursday evening.
We have e-sports and tournaments and open video game play events regularly.
We have lots of volunteer opportunities for fostering community as well.
Anyone isolated *here* is so by choice.

required a minimum of 2 semesters of direct teaching experience (although, admittedly, that requirement was pretty week).

Admittedly, physics, chemistry, biology, and many other STEM PhD programs do not provide any teaching experience to students.

Even with teaching training/experience, a lot of PhDs suck at teaching - often because they are arrogant f**ks (like my cousin who, from what he's bragged about to me, sounds like a HORRIBLE instructor).