In the past, have made a number of claims regarding the future of higher education. Specifically, I have stated that I believed that the future of higher education will contain a mix of traditional classes and AV remote classes shared between peer institutions. I have also stated that I believe that many of these connections will arise out of conference affiliation because they will be funded by conference athletic revenue in an effort to "green-wash" the big business that is college athletics. In doing so, I have bemoaned the fact that the CIC offers some select remote learning classes and the ACCIAC, the ACC counterpart, doesn't.

However, I have recently learned that the groundwork for shared remote classes amongst ACC institutions is already being established by the Colonial Group. Syracuse, Miami (FL), Brandeis, George Washington, and Northeastern are all sharing joint classes through high definition remote viewing technologies. Although SU and Miami are the only ACC members currently participating in the venture, I believe that other colonial group members will soon join. As it stands right now, the Colonial Group consists of 14 members, including 5 ACC members. It is my opinion that once the logistics behind course sharing amongst a critical mass of ACC schools have been figured out, the conference as a whole will be able to quickly embrace the idea with relative ease if necessary. So, in my opinion, the Colonial Group's actions are keeping the ACC on equal footing with the B1G.

This news is especially good for the ACC, which generally consists of private schools and small/medium public schools because private schools and small/medium public schools tend to have fewer course offerings than big state schools. By pooling resources, ACC schools will be able to match the offerings of big state schools, while maintaining the higher quality of education that tends to exist in the ACC. In short and somewhat oversimplified, it will change the equation from cost + offerings v. quality of education to cost v. quality of education, which should benefit most ACC member institutions.

For anyone wondering, the ACC members of the Colonial Group are:
Wake Forest, Notre Dame, Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College.
http://smu.edu/ir/consortium_home_page.htm

Also, here's a link to the SU Office of the Registrar's webpage which mentions the course sharing:
http://syr.edu/registrar/

"New in Spring 2014, Syracuse University is piloting a program to share online undergraduate courses with Colonial Group consortium participating member universities including: Brandeis University; George Washington University; University of Miami; and Northeastern. These courses are not MOOCs, but high-quality, limited enrollment classes of approximately 25-35 students per class. The course sharing program will enable students from across member institutions to expand their courses of study with access to online courses not available at their home institution.

At Syracuse University only full-time upper class students are eligible to participate. SU students will receive transfer credit on their transcript for the completed course, provided the grade is "C" or better. Students are required to discuss how the course will fit with their course of study at Syracuse University with their advisors prior to completing an application."

the 5 acc schools are all private. so with the exception of duke i really dont see this expanding

NC State, Carolina and ECU all have "Distance Education" programs in place. NCSU has had their program in place for at least a decade. They are currently offering 300 courses and 50 degrees.

They also have programs in place that allow you to take some courses at select schools. You can enroll at NCSU and take some courses at a local community college or even at another UNC-System school.

(11-09-2013 08:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the 5 acc schools are all private. so with the exception of duke i really dont see this expanding

What does that matter? There's no reason why a public school couldn't do this. The B1G already does. I think that the private ACC schools are acting first because they tend to be smaller (i.e. WF), so they have the most to gain. However, if it works, and I think that it will, the public schools would have to be crazy to not partake.

(11-09-2013 09:54 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  NC State, Carolina and ECU all have "Distance Education" programs in place. NCSU has had their program in place for at least a decade. They are currently offering 300 courses and 50 degrees.

They also have programs in place that allow you to take some courses at select schools. You can enroll at NCSU and take some courses at a local community college or even at another UNC-System school.

Distance learning is very good, but this is even better. Nobody has to physically change location.

(11-09-2013 10:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 09:54 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  NC State, Carolina and ECU all have "Distance Education" programs in place. NCSU has had their program in place for at least a decade. They are currently offering 300 courses and 50 degrees.

They also have programs in place that allow you to take some courses at select schools. You can enroll at NCSU and take some courses at a local community college or even at another UNC-System school.

Distance learning is very good, but this is even better. Nobody has to physically change location.

You don't have to change location with these programs. If you live in Greenville, NC you can get an engineering degree from NCSU by taking some classes on-line and some at ECU or Pitt Community College. You never have to set foot on an NCSU campus. They also have programs in place to share courses with non-UNC or NCCC schools. I know they share courses with Meredith College (a small, private, women's college in Raleigh).

My point is that this is not limited to small or private schools. The only difference I see is that the Colonial Group facilitates the sharing between schools in different states, while NCSU, UNC, etc. coordinate everything in-house.

This could also be a disaster for the private schools. If NCSU were to join the Colonial Group, I could take courses through NCSU (~$200/credit hour) and get a degree from Syracuse for 1/10 of what it would cost to actually go to Syracuse.

GATech is a leader in the online mass education field. They would probably be very interested.

http://www.dlpe.gatech.edu/dl/

(11-10-2013 07:51 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 10:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 09:54 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  NC State, Carolina and ECU all have "Distance Education" programs in place. NCSU has had their program in place for at least a decade. They are currently offering 300 courses and 50 degrees.

They also have programs in place that allow you to take some courses at select schools. You can enroll at NCSU and take some courses at a local community college or even at another UNC-System school.

Distance learning is very good, but this is even better. Nobody has to physically change location.

You don't have to change location with these programs. If you live in Greenville, NC you can get an engineering degree from NCSU by taking some classes on-line and some at ECU or Pitt Community College. You never have to set foot on an NCSU campus. They also have programs in place to share courses with non-UNC or NCCC schools. I know they share courses with Meredith College (a small, private, women's college in Raleigh).

My point is that this is not limited to small or private schools. The only difference I see is that the Colonial Group facilitates the sharing between schools in different states, while NCSU, UNC, etc. coordinate everything in-house.

This could also be a disaster for the private schools. If NCSU were to join the Colonial Group, I could take courses through NCSU (~$200/credit hour) and get a degree from Syracuse for 1/10 of what it would cost to actually go to Syracuse.

RE classes amongst the NC schools:
"You never have to set foot on an NCSU campus" is kind of my point. Here you would never have to step off the NCSU campus. It's the inverse. None the less, that's interesting and really cool. Great add! I know SU has partial reciprocity with many schools, but I don't think that it has complete reciprocity with any schools. Does the NC system mean complete reciprocity with all NC schools? Also, are schools like Wake and Duke included?

RE disaster:
You are correct, but it's my understanding that there are limits on how many courses you can take for just that reason. Also, I would imagine that the class selection is limited to a handful of unique classes and your degree would still be from your "home" school.

(11-09-2013 07:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  In the past, have made a number of claims regarding the future of higher education. Specifically, I have stated that I believed that the future of higher education will contain a mix of traditional classes and AV remote classes shared between peer institutions. I have also stated that I believe that many of these connections will arise out of conference affiliation because they will be funded by conference athletic revenue in an effort to "green-wash" the big business that is college athletics. In doing so, I have bemoaned the fact that the CIC offers some select remote learning classes and the ACCIAC, the ACC counterpart, doesn't. ...... So, in my opinion, the Colonial Group's actions are keeping the ACC on equal footing with the B1G.

See, on the contrary, I see this as an example of how athletic conferences are superfluous to what is going on in higher ed. And the Colonial Group existing outside of and in complete indifference to athletic department affiliations is a perfect example of this. Schools of similar mission and operations are more likely to affiliate for academic purposes, or schools that are geographically close, like Pitt and Carnegie Mellon. I also don't see conferences, like the ACC, kicking in more of their revenues to do these things. The B10 does not do that; the CIC collects annual dues. The ACC is one of the only conferences that diverts some profit from their football championship to offer academic programs. Frankly, ACC athletic departments can't afford to fall behind other conferences revenue distributions because it is diverting significant money to "green wash" its primary mission, which frankly is to provide collective security to its the member's athletic departments by negotiating contracts for their products.

If the ACC wants the ACCIAC to be "on equal footing" with the CIC, then the ACCIAC needs to start collecting dues from ACC members so it can afford to hire more staff. But the ACCIAC and CIC have different focuses, because the membership of the schools is quite different, so I don't actually think if it matters if they are different offerings. In other words, it doesn't have to copy the CIC, it needs to be what would benefit its member institutions the most. Maybe that is course exchanges, maybe that is something else.

(11-10-2013 06:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 07:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  In the past, have made a number of claims regarding the future of higher education. Specifically, I have stated that I believed that the future of higher education will contain a mix of traditional classes and AV remote classes shared between peer institutions. I have also stated that I believe that many of these connections will arise out of conference affiliation because they will be funded by conference athletic revenue in an effort to "green-wash" the big business that is college athletics. In doing so, I have bemoaned the fact that the CIC offers some select remote learning classes and the ACCIAC, the ACC counterpart, doesn't. ...... So, in my opinion, the Colonial Group's actions are keeping the ACC on equal footing with the B1G.

See, on the contrary, I see this as an example of how athletic conferences are superfluous to what is going on in higher ed. And the Colonial Group existing outside of and in complete indifference to athletic department affiliations is a perfect example of this. Schools of similar mission and operations are more likely to affiliate for academic purposes, or schools that are geographically close, like Pitt and Carnegie Mellon. I also don't see conferences, like the ACC, kicking in more of their revenues to do these things. The B10 does not do that; the CIC collects annual dues. The ACC is one of the only conferences that diverts some profit from their football championship to offer academic programs. Frankly, ACC athletic departments can't afford to fall behind other conferences revenue distributions because it is diverting significant money to "green wash" its primary mission, which frankly is to provide collective security to its the member's athletic departments by negotiating contracts for their products.

If the ACC wants the ACCIAC to be "on equal footing" with the CIC, then the ACCIAC needs to start collecting dues from ACC members so it can afford to hire more staff. But the ACCIAC and CIC have different focuses, because the membership of the schools is quite different, so I don't actually think if it matters if they are different offerings. In other words, it doesn't have to copy the CIC, it needs to be what would benefit its member institutions the most. Maybe that is course exchanges, maybe that is something else.

I disagree. I really don't think that there's a lot more that conference academic programs can do on the research front that they aren't already doing, and frankly the pooled purchasing isn't overly impressive when the savings are compared to the university's research budgets. I just don't see these things going any direction other than towards improving course offerings and the classroom quality.

As for funding, you might be right, but there is growing momentum for these organizations and their funding has been increasing over time. I'll freely stipulate that you probably know more about where these consortiums get their money, but the three most famous ones are the CIC, SECU, and the ACCIAC, and the SECU and ACCIAC both get money from conference championship games. That's at least 2 of 3, and possibly 3 of 3, depending on whether the CIC gets funding from their championship game.

Finally, I also think that you misunderstood my green wash comment. Collegiate athletics exist for the purpose of benefitting academic performance and enhancing student life. Colleges are educational institutions, not athletic organizations a la the Dallas Cowboys, the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Lakers, and so on. Although athletic conferences enhance athletic departments and help them operate more effectively and more efficiently, they do not change their underlying mission. Unfortunately, I think that many colleges are losing their way and overemphasizing athletic achievement at the expense of academic achievements. In my opinion, conference-affiliated academic organizations are an extremely easy and fairly cheap way to continue emphasizing athletics, while giving the impression of caring about academics. Call me cynical, but that's why I think it's similar to green washing.

(11-10-2013 09:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I disagree. I really don't think that there's a lot more that conference academic programs can do on the research front that they aren't already doing, and frankly the pooled purchasing isn't overly impressive when the savings are compared to the university's research budgets. I just don't see these things going any direction other than towards improving course offerings and the classroom quality.

As for funding, you might be right, but there is growing momentum for these organizations and their funding has been increasing over time. I'll freely stipulate that you probably know more about where these consortiums get their money, but the three most famous ones are the CIC, SECU, and the ACCIAC, and the SECU and ACCIAC both get money from conference championship games. That's at least 2 of 3, and possibly 3 of 3, depending on whether the CIC gets funding from their championship game.

Finally, I also think that you misunderstood my green wash comment. Collegiate athletics exist for the purpose of benefitting academic performance and enhancing student life. Colleges are educational institutions, not athletic organizations a la the Dallas Cowboys, the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Lakers, and so on. Although athletic conferences enhance athletic departments and help them operate more effectively and more efficiently, they do not change their underlying mission. Unfortunately, I think that many colleges are losing their way and overemphasizing athletic achievement at the expense of academic achievements. In my opinion, conference-affiliated academic organizations are an extremely easy and fairly cheap way to continue emphasizing athletics, while giving the impression of caring about academics. Call me cynical, but that's why I think it's similar to green washing.

These consortiums could do a lot more to facilitate research collaboration. The problem is those things cost money.

The purchasing consortium is really the most impressive thing the CIC does. Find me a provost or dean that would like to find an extra million in their budget.

But remember the CIC ≠ the Big Ten. From their last annual report, $2,167,275 of their $2,381,316 operating revenue came from membership dues (approximately about $170K a year). $214,041 of the revenue is described as "other". The vast bulk ($1.6 million) of that is spent on CIC staff salary and another $425 is spent on operations including rent and supplies. The main value that comes back to its members are in the form of the purchasing consortium savings or meetings that are facilitated, some IT level stuff. There is some real stuff there that is valuable, but not necessarily that unique (accept for the combination of the things with in this one consortium). It is supporting and building collaborative infrastructure to a degree at certain (higher) levels of the university, but it is not funding actual projects at individual universities (in contrast to the ACCIAC).

The ACCIAC gets $450,000 from the championship game. That's pretty much its entire budget. It has only 1/5th of an employee. Most of the ACCIAC's money is distributed as undergrad fellowships. That makes it very different from the CIC...and in a way, actually more active, even perhaps more impactful since students at the schools are benefiting directly and faculty are benefitting directly if they get an ACC exchange scholar in their lab. You want to talk about doing more on the research end, just put more money into these programs and create more fellowship and scholar positions. That's real money going to research or creative projects.

I didn't misunderstand your green-wash comment at all. It is the main reason these things exist. But I don't see conference putting more money into them just to "green wash" things. After all, Clemson has got to renovate their basketball arena. If the ACCIAC wanted to be on equal footing of the CIC, it needs at least triple its budget and hire some full time staff....and market it, because the CIC has reached this mythical status largely through perception.

(11-10-2013 11:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 09:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I disagree. I really don't think that there's a lot more that conference academic programs can do on the research front that they aren't already doing, and frankly the pooled purchasing isn't overly impressive when the savings are compared to the university's research budgets. I just don't see these things going any direction other than towards improving course offerings and the classroom quality.

As for funding, you might be right, but there is growing momentum for these organizations and their funding has been increasing over time. I'll freely stipulate that you probably know more about where these consortiums get their money, but the three most famous ones are the CIC, SECU, and the ACCIAC, and the SECU and ACCIAC both get money from conference championship games. That's at least 2 of 3, and possibly 3 of 3, depending on whether the CIC gets funding from their championship game.

Finally, I also think that you misunderstood my green wash comment. Collegiate athletics exist for the purpose of benefitting academic performance and enhancing student life. Colleges are educational institutions, not athletic organizations a la the Dallas Cowboys, the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Lakers, and so on. Although athletic conferences enhance athletic departments and help them operate more effectively and more efficiently, they do not change their underlying mission. Unfortunately, I think that many colleges are losing their way and overemphasizing athletic achievement at the expense of academic achievements. In my opinion, conference-affiliated academic organizations are an extremely easy and fairly cheap way to continue emphasizing athletics, while giving the impression of caring about academics. Call me cynical, but that's why I think it's similar to green washing.

These consortiums could do a lot more to facilitate research collaboration. The problem is those things cost money.

The purchasing consortium is really the most impressive thing the CIC does. Find me a provost or dean that would like to find an extra million in their budget.

But remember the CIC ≠ the Big Ten. From their last annual report, $2,167,275 of their $2,381,316 operating revenue came from membership dues (approximately about $170K a year). $214,041 of the revenue is described as "other". The vast bulk ($1.6 million) of that is spent on CIC staff salary and another $425 is spent on operations including rent and supplies. The main value that comes back to its members are in the form of the purchasing consortium savings or meetings that are facilitated, some IT level stuff. There is some real stuff there that is valuable, but not necessarily that unique (accept for the combination of the things with in this one consortium). It is supporting and building collaborative infrastructure to a degree at certain (higher) levels of the university, but it is not funding actual projects at individual universities (in contrast to the ACCIAC).

The ACCIAC gets $450,000 from the championship game. That's pretty much its entire budget. It has only 1/5th of an employee. Most of the ACCIAC's money is distributed as undergrad fellowships. That makes it very different from the CIC...and in a way, actually more active, even perhaps more impactful since students at the schools are benefiting directly and faculty are benefitting directly if they get an ACC exchange scholar in their lab. You want to talk about doing more on the research end, just put more money into these programs and create more fellowship and scholar positions. That's real money going to research or creative projects.

I didn't misunderstand your green-wash comment at all. It is the main reason these things exist. But I don't see conference putting more money into them just to "green wash" things. After all, Clemson has got to renovate their basketball arena. If the ACCIAC wanted to be on equal footing of the CIC, it needs at least triple its budget and hire some full time staff....and market it, because the CIC has reached this mythical status largely through perception.

"....and market it, because the CIC has reached this mythical status largely through perception."

We agree whole-heartedly there. Other than that, I think that we approach academic fundamentally differently. You come from a hard science background that values extensive (and expensive) research, whereas I come from a legal/finance/government/business/econ background that focuses more on a school's ability to disseminate knowledge. Sure there is a ton of research involved in the business world, but it isn't as expensive as R&D (or med), and most of it doesn't require specialized training (aside from interpreting the statistics or learning how to write the question/what questions to ask). Given that the vast majority of college students are in my boat, I'm not overly concerned with a university's research, or lack thereof. I have yet to hear anyone make a compelling case as to why ND (non-AAU member) is a worse *overall* school than SUNY Buffalo (AAU member).

So, when I look at institutions like the CIC, I heavily discount the research advantages. I saw something where the CIC has saved member institutions something like $17 million since it's inception from pooled purchasing. Even if I'm remembering that wrong and it's $17 million/yr, PSU spends more on having an airplane for the school president than it saves on research spending. IMO, that's how little it matters to them. If there was really THAT much low-hanging fruit in Happy Valley after PSU's $4 billion budget, Erickson would be on Southwest sitting with the rest of us saps. Sure, dept. heads may raise heck in meetings, but when they're asked to take one for the team, I'm guessing it looks like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU). Moving beyond the CIC's pooled purchasing, the CIC has an inter-library loan program (which is dwarfed by the existing programs in which every since B1G member school already participates), a visiting professor/student program (which would probably exist anyway), study abroad reciprocity (which exists anyway), and access to pooled IT resources. All of that is nice and dandy, but how much does it really matter? And how much can it be improved?

Other than that, the CIC offers join AV learning, which IMO is the future of collegiate academics, and that's what makes it better than the ACCIAC (for the time being). However, the ACCIAC doesn't need to be 5x bigger to offer such a program. In fact, the entire beauty of the ACC is that it isn't 5x bigger. ACC students are just that...students. They aren't numbers. Fortunately, I think that the ACC is moving that way. Sure it doesn't have to be the ACC, and right now it's the colonial group, but frankly I believe that the ACC schools have to put money into the ACCIAC pot, and I don't see a better use for it.

And, somewhat abruptly switching subjects, money is fungible. It doesn't *just* come from the either the athletic departments of the ACC, or even the ACC itself. It comes from the universities as a whole that comprise the ACC. The fact that ACC institutions expense the ACCIAC through their athletic depts. as opposed to their academic departments a la B1G schools is a matter of internal managerial accounting and nothing else. It's purely form with no actual substance.