Idea: Time for a new kind of college

[John Masterson]

There is a huge need for a new type of college that would turn out students who are very gifted at fulfilling the job roles of the 21st century. This is primarily knowledge work, keen judgement, self-discipline, and the social smarts to "fit in" excellently and work easily and enjoyably with others.

I would love to start and run one of these.

Ideally this degree would use online courses extensively (dramatically lowered costs), while having hands-on "labs" where students actually work in a (college-sponsored) business...but are intensively mentored and monitored, with feedback. Much like a doctor-in-training's clinical rotations where there are interns at a teaching hospital.

This degree should cost 1/4th of what a typical degree does today. The college-run business profits would help defray the cost of the programs.

The college board of directors would feature CEOS and general managers from very successful businesses, both large and smaller, to guide the curriculum and assure that the graduates were highly desired by all sorts of businesses and organizations.

It would be a "brand", like Ivy League schools are now.

It would meet the needs of citizens as well as business.

(Addendum): In fact, I might make it a three-year school, and farm out the first year to community colleges for the foundation courses.

[TechTalk]

How do you create world-class educational institutions that are academically rigorous and vocationally relevant?
This certainly isn't the first time that this question has been asked.  Your idea sounds like it could work as a replacement for the current U.S. MBA school model.  I suppose the European business schools with one-year MBA models and their emphasis on practical vocational learning rather than on academic theory could be considered as well.  For the most part, I think business students simply survive college when they are required to read case studies and write academic reports/papers.  I am glad to hear that many medical schools are starting to phase out memorization from their curriculum.

I agree with you that educational institutions should act as effective bridges between academia and the professional world where knowledge is applied.  One of the biggest obstacles is probably getting any new type of college accredited and then accepted by the business community at large.

Since we are talking about fantasy land
I am all for a complete face lift of the undergraduate degree programs (or at least some of them).  I say get rid of all of the general bullsh*t classes except for English writing and critical thinking.  In other words, if you are attending school for a business degree then you should be taking mostly business classes.  Same thing for economics, psychology, etc.  I hated taking economics classes and believe only students wanting that type of degree should be required to take them.  Personally, I think it is a failed discipline that predicts nothing and doesn't do a good job of explaining much of anything in a practical manner.  Perhaps, if quantum computers become a reality that field might actually make some progress towards being helpful/useful to the general public.  The joke, "An economist is the only job where you can be wrong 100% of the time and still have a job" has a lot of truth to it.

[Walter Mitty]

There is a huge need for a new type of college that would turn out students who are very gifted at fulfilling the job roles of the 21st century. This is primarily knowledge work, keen judgement, self-discipline, and the social smarts to "fit in" excellently and work easily and enjoyably with others.

Nitpick:  The word "gifted" is out of place here.  "Gifted" refers to natural born talents, not acquired skills and knowledge.  "He's a gifted musician" doesn't mean he got a great musical training.

If it isn't gifting, is it training or education?  If it's training, where to people get educated?  Is education important, if it doesn't prepare you for a job role?

[Walter Mitty]

Tech Talk,

I disagree with your evaluation of economics.  Some of the more useful and interesting courses I took outside my major were three courses in economics.  While the model is distresslingly imprecise, it does forecast the outcome of events better than staring at sunspots. 

In particular, regardless of what you think of the Obama administration, it remains true that the secretary of the treasury isn't repeating the same mistakes of 1929-1932.  Although congress is likely to consider a bill that look a lot like Smoot-Hawley.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

[I D Shukhov]

My new kind of college would be to prepare worker-entrepreneurs to form worker owned and democratically managed companies.  "Democracy" would not necessarily be direct control of decision making, more like the ability to participate in assigning weights to factors involved in decisions and the ability to elect decision makers.

This new kind of college would *not* prepare students for the corporate grist mill.   Conventional colleges do a perfectly good job at that.  Corporations assume that new grads don't know anything and will learn on the job.  What they look for is achievement in what is similar to sports farm teams.

[TechTalk]

I disagree with your evaluation of economics.   Some of the more useful and interesting courses I took outside my major were three courses in economics.

Well, I am glad that you found those courses interesting and enjoyed them.  I am not saying that we should scrap or phase out the discipline, however, I do believe that the way it is taught needs to be reformed.  Much of what was taught when I attended school were unproven theories and when some of the unproven theories are actually implemented in the real world they often make things worse rather than better.  Heck, even Paul Krugman (he won the Nobel prize in economics) recently stated that macroeconomics as a discipline is in worse shape nowadays then when he graduated from college.

...the secretary of the treasury isn't repeating the same mistakes of 1929-1932

Well, it is the academic professor and now Fed chairman Ben Bernanke who studied the Great Depression.  Note: In a recent article that I read (in Forbes?) the author mentioned that Ben Bernanke publicly admitted that he does not understand why his policies are not working or why unemployment remains high.  The fact of the matter is that the mistakes of say the Fed during the Great Depression are still being debated today.  Also, the U.S. is a vastly different nation today than it was during that time period, so, what might have worked back then doesn't mean that it would work today.

Although congress is likely to consider a bill that look a lot like Smoot-Hawley.

Again, this tariff and its impact is still being debated today.

Theory vs. Practice (one specific example is being used)
Among others, Henry Mintzberg has been stating for years that management is practice and that B-Schools do not equip managers to be able to manage.  By itself, you can't learn cycling, swimming, singing, playing a musical instrument etc. from reading books or debating what the protagonist in a case study on cycling/swimming/singing etc. should do.  You also can't learn an activity by listening to a cyclist, swimmer, singer, musician describe what they do.  What happens in B-Schools is that the cyclist, swimmer, singer, musician is not even left alone to practice his/her art - instead they are forced to research, write and publish papers on - 'the ultimate rules that govern cycling/swimming/singing/playing the instrument'.  If someone wants to argue that a person needs both theory and practical experience I wouldn't disagree.

Just to add some complexity to the discussion -- Learning is often "context specific"
Just like in software development many of the things a manager working at ACME, Inc. needs to know (or should know) are not universally applicable to other businesses.