Ben Nelson, “Taking on the Ivy League”
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEv8g80lcjo
Continuing on from our heated conversation in class on Thursday about Minerva University, the Arts group thought to dig a little deeper into the conversation of twenty-first century higher education in the world. Ben Nelson is the founder, chairman and CEO of the Minerva project, and formed the Minerva Schools at KGI, also known as the Minerva University. This TED Talk by briefly explained his purpose and reasons of creating Minerva University.
The four key areas of higher education he elaborated on: access, affordability, instruction and outcome, prompted us to rethink the purpose of receiving a higher education and what is considered an appropriate outcome of your higher education experience.
In terms of access, what do you think is the purpose of the highly selective admission processes of the Ivy League schools? Try to forget about the Ivy Leagues and big names, what would the world’s greatest education look like to you? Ironically, when Ben Nelson talked about how Ivy League schools had limited its number of admitted students and are highly selective, Minerva itself became one of the most selective and competitive schools to get into in the world.
At last, what do you think of technology’s role in reimagining and reshaping higher education today? Do you believe that Minerva will eventually be the future of higher education?
Here are additional videos on Minerva University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n201cHf88O4
So, at times my skeptical side comes out, and this is one of those times. While there are things to admire about Minerva’s approach, particularly I like the international campus capability, I’m just not sold. The YouTube video comes off as a little new-age/hippy I think. One article I read defines it as “techno-utopianism” (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2486177,00.asp), which I think I like better.
It makes me wonder what really defines the success of a university: the students’ success brought about because of a student’s performance, the quality of professors, services, and facilities and how that creates student success, a combination of many factors… ? Minerva seems to heavily depend upon a student’s self-motivation, go-getter-ness, and maturity to always put their education at the top of their priority list (which, as we all know, isn’t always the truth at the undergraduate level, and even the graduate level!). Thus, if Minerva succeeds, is it simply because they accepted the right students to ensure their success? If Minerva fails, is it really the fault of their vision and platform?
I would be willing to try Minerva, but only as a complement. Something like a summer abroad while I take a couple courses. Or even a term or a year out of 4-year program, as long as all the credits were to transfer in seamlessly to my degree, of course. Like others have said, it would be very difficult for me to jump into this new type of program, even if it were free.
I actually asked my friends through several WeChat groups about Minerva University (they have different education backgrounds). Will they apply for Minerva University? Will they send their children to Minerva in the future? None of them said “yes”…they replied that it might be ok for graduate school or continued school because of its mobility. However, they won’t go there for four-year college. The true and deep friendship is always based on a common learning and living life. No judgment. But I actually stand with them that although technology changed our life, there is still something that cannot be replaced.
Thanks Joanna for posting this article on Minerva! I’m particularly interested in the role of technology to reimagine and reshape higher education today. I went on Minerva’s YouTube channel and had a look at how the university conducts its Active Learning Forums, which tries to replicate the ways in which universities conduct their seminars. In Minerva, students are scattered across the world but they convene wirelessly to have a seminar with a professor. Sure, Minerva’s gadgetry looks very high-tech and it is obviously trying to mimic the conditions of actual face-to-face seminars, but I wonder if technological advancement in (higher) education can ever replace or surpass the advantages that physical seminars offer, such as offering opportunities for real-world social interaction between course mates of different cultural and professional backgrounds — our class being a fine example of that kind of diversity.
And also not to mention that having students physically present in a classroom helps to create conditions for lively debate, where students are able to interject, question and develop each other’s points through group work or class-based discussion. Minerva’s Active Learning Forum certainly allows for students to engage in discussion, but because it is a form of long-distance learning, it will always be subject to other peripheral environmental factors such as internet connection, the acoustics and ambience of a student’s location (whether they are in their bedrooms or in a cafe outside as it is shown in Minerva’s video demonstration), and differing time zones (which can be a HUGE impediment to a student’s learning if they are particularly prone to bouts of jet lag).
Thanks Tim! I was also thinking about the technical difficulties such a model could have and although they could be fixed in the future, slow internet connection is still an issue today. And as Kendall says, I am not “sold” either. I came to Columbia to experience the campus life, seminar and seminar-like classes. I know the younger generations are more interested in technology, but I still wonder how this change of model will happen, considering all the history and years of existence of higher education as we know it.
Angelica