We got schooled

in LeoFinance •  3 months ago 

With the change toward remote business and schooling, more and more services are going to be pushed online and the more protracted this global event is, the more impact it will have as it becomes the new normal. What is going to be interesting is how this is going to affect education, considering the institutions are already starting to become more irrelevant in the workplace, as automation creeps in and there are less jobs on offer for many of their graduates. A lot of them are in the development stages of having remote classes, which hasn't actually been uncommon in the past, as degrees via correspondence have happened for a very long time.

Hanna blue top 28 of 31 1.jpg

There are many advantages for the institution to be able to offer an online degree, especially for the ones that have a name behind them, like Harvard, Yale, Oxford or Cambridge - and there are benefits for students too that couldn't get an on campus degree under normal circumstances. The problem is that why get a degree from a small university when it is possible from a prestigious one? This could kill a lot of the small campuses.

But it is more than this and any one with even the slightest bit of economic understanding should see the problem. The prestigious university degrees aren't valued because of the education, they are valued because of the prestige associated with the name and this makes them exclusive and the people holding degrees from those institutions, scarce.

Once remote, the cost of education comes down significantly and the ability to scale up increases drastically, meaning that a school can offer a degree to pretty much anyone, anywhere on earth without needing them to ever set foot on a campus. While I am sure that there will be some admission criteria, the economic incentive to "oversell" degrees is so large globally that the large institution are likely to dilute the value of their degrees heavily, especially by offering online courses into countries where there is wealth, but limited mobility.

While it is a good thing that people have access to education, the problem is going to be that the degrees that are valued in the short term are those that were recently scarce. This could result in a market saturation of degrees, making them quite worthless, regardless of which institution they come from. In the meantime however, the schools themselves will be able to cash-in on their reputation, without offering anything of value to their clientele. And then, the courses themselves become ubiquitous, as once they are online, there will be a huge amount of "copy paste" in education around the world, so that there is very little variance in content.

Formal education has to change but replication what they do now, digitally, isn't the change that is actually needed. With automation the biggest risk to the future of employment, the education systems around the world are failing to prepare children for that future and instead seem to be extracting value by giving them "busywork" in the meantime, as there are unlikely to be jobs available for many of them in the future.

I think that some of the discontent in the young is that they have been lied to, where the "get a good education and you'll be fine" line just doesn't hold true to reality. In many countries, not only have many gone through the education, they have had to pay heavily to do so and once out, are effectively slaves to the debt for an education that is unable to provide the value needed to service it.

Push this out into remote off-campus study and while the education might get cheaper in comparison to the tuition fees for on-campus at these prestigious colleges, the inflation in numbers with the degree means they will attract less attention in the job market. Harvard admits about 2000 students a year - what does it mean when their off-site admissions might be 20x that? What would you be willing to pay for a Harvard education, if you never had to go to Harvard?

The cost of tuition, fees and extras for an MBA from Harvard is around $110,000 a year and they say that the median salary of graduates is about 150,000. That sounds like a good deal perhaps, but if there are 20 times more graduates, what happens to the median after graduation salary? We have to think about ROI, don't we?

But, maybe this is a good thing for education overall, as it probably should be that all education is free for all who want to do it, and going remote is a step in that direction. There of course still has to be competition as to who gets jobs, but it can mean that it is more based on ability, rather than wealth or some kind of privilege. With the coming automation of many jobs however, the entire education system might become a moot point, as so much of it becomes wholesale irrelevant over the coming decades.

Education systems are employee creators and that is so a government can gather taxes. This is why corporations have a lower tax rate than citizens, as they are the ones who offer jobs to the graduates that will pay a higher rate of tax to keep the game going. But, automation and AI means that the corporations require less people to generate more income, meaning that less of the income generated goes to employees to be subjected to the higher rate of tax - governments are getting less to do what they do, people are getting less to live - corporations are making more.

Everyone should know, If a business could have a zero employee count, it would.

This is because the law of business itself, as the goal is to increase shareholder wealth and employees are an operating cost. It is also why the supply chains of corporations are continually looking for the cheapest employees, even if they are child labor, as it is all about reducing unit cost to increase wealth. The incentive has never been to keep people employed or keep people doing something that they value and is valued by the community - it has always been to reduce costs to maximize profit.

The education systems have been their source of subsidized skilled labor for a very long time, but they are needing it less and less, especially since the institutions are only providing proof that the person could complete the degree - and then have to be trained by the corporation anyway. Why hire from a prestigious university if a company can identify a solid candidate and train them specifically to their needs? Not only that, they can pay them less because that new employee isn't saddled with a debt from their education.

I think filtering potential candidates is also something that automation is going to be able to affect, as they will eventually be able to buy a complete profile of an applicant and have a far more accurate view of whether the person is suited to their organization - which will be far more sensitive than, "They got a degree from Princeton".

This pandemic is going to have a massive amount of repercussions for many years on many industries and we are only just now starting to see the effects of economic malfeasance. It is all well and good to think that they have "our safety" at heart, but we have to consider the ramifications of our current actions and how they might play out over a longer period of time. One thing is pretty obvious and that is, we can't keep borrowing from the future, yet it keeps happening - For those who keep making this decision, I wonder where they got their economics degree?

We put a lot of value on education because it is important - but over the last however long, we have done much the same as we have done with finance - instead of looking at education as something practical, we have disconnected it from reality and created a derivative instead. While, there is a huge amount of education going on in the background, less of real value is getting done.

At some point, the investment in the education won't be worth the pdf it is printed on.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I just read today that Wal-Mart ended it's affiliation with a robotics company and has scuttled it's plans to use robots to scan shelves. They plan to hire more employees to do that job.

Not that you need a college degree from NAU (Northern Arizona University) to scan shelves at Wal Mart but it's interesting that an incredibly profit driven organization would go away from robotics.

I'm currently enrolled in an online class on the US Constitution. It's free from a small University in Texas and may be worth exactly what I pay for it, but it is an undergrad class. I'm pretty sure I'm not too fond of 'on line' education but I'm old and crotchety and I suspect younger people aren't as put off as me.

Which brings me finally to a point. That using on line education companies could design and sponsor their preferred courses that would be tailored to their needs. You think they could find a college to work with on that? I'm thinking without much problem.

I just read today that Wal-Mart ended it's affiliation with a robotics company and has scuttled it's plans to use robots to scan shelves. They plan to hire more employees to do that job.

They will likely go backwards and forwards for a time - remembering that there is an oversupply of workers at the moment, so it could actually be cheaper in the short-term to hire humans. 20 years from now, they might make a different decision.

I'm pretty sure I'm not too fond of 'on line' education but I'm old and crotchety and I suspect younger people aren't as put off as me.

You could be the old and wise one ;)

I think there is a lot of potential for customization, as well as companies will be able to leverage some of the systems to tailor their own courses for employees perhaps. This would give a benefit for global companies in particular, as they can outsource some of their educational needs.

cheaper in the short-term to hire humans. 20 years from now, they might make a different decision.

No question. I think that would be a probability.

I'd think a company, any company, could work with a small college (which is why I originally mentioned NAU)to specify needs. From the history and actuality of coffee production (which I had to learn and teach when I owned a coffee shop) to region specific agronomy classes that could deal with specific crops. Many could be 'normal' offered classes AND company training classes. My friend Erv is currently teaching his last botany class for ASU with 5 students. Obviously scale is completely relative.

Until now, college graduates have become the elite of the world and have formed a ruling class. If the number of college graduates through online lectures increases, will the existence value of offline universities decrease?

Since the people who can go to college are from the middle class or higher, the college was an institution that fostered the ruling class.
The dominant classes of society were formed through personal relationships between people from the same universities. If the number of college graduates through offline lectures increases, will universities lose their value of existence as an institution for nurturing the ruling class?

will the existence value of offline universities decrease?

I think so - they are already getting somewhat out of favor - especially considering that some campuses might have security issues of various kinds, and the social movements aren't going away.

will universities lose their value of existence as an institution for nurturing the ruling class?

In part - especially once more practical skills are needed - does a university train a plumber?

I think so - they are already getting somewhat out of favor - especially considering that some campuses might have security issues of various kinds, and the social movements aren't going away.

I agree with you!

In part - especially once more practical skills are needed - does a university train a plumber?

Perhaps there are plumbers who have graduated from college. If they create plumbers' unions and businesses, they can become the ruling class of society.
I think the people who graduated from college have the intelligence and knowledge to be the dominant class of society.

I think the people who graduated from college have the intelligence and knowledge to be the dominant class of society.

It always depends on supply and demand - if they are unable to supply something demanded, it is hard to rule. Generally, they rule be creating fear and offering security.

That's pretty much why I have our slightly deviant little education system over here :)

DeviantSchools - do you have a website?

Not one called DeviantSchools XD

;D

My kids are loving virtual school in Canada. They are learning how to do everything online and making a pretty good living with Adsense, Youtube and Crypto blogging. No need to get a real job.

I don't know how old your kids are, but do you think that they will be able to do this from here on out without having to "get a real job" or is it too early for this move (on average)?

They are 16 and 13. The world is moving online. They have a good head start. They will be able to work from anywhere with an internet connection.

It is going to be interesting as to what everyone will be expected to do online for money.

I think filtering potential candidates is also something that automation is going to be able to affect, as they will eventually be able to buy a complete profile of an applicant and have a far more accurate view of whether the person is suited to their organization - which will be far more sensitive than, "They got a degree from Princeton".

There's so much truth here. I expect the model:

1: Post job add
2: Screen applicants
3: Hire one

Will be replaced with AI assisted headhunting.

I think that it is already happening in headhunting, thinking that LinkedIn offers some of this capability already.

I have seen a few news reports of ground up mobility being implemented in many businesses, that the companies have to do so much re-education that they are finding it cheaper and more relevant to train their own employees. I have always thought this was the direction companies needed to take. Hire the kid out of high school, and train them to your future needs apprenticeship style.

I am seeing this also and I think that apprenticeships will come somewhat back into fashion, especially since many of the future jobs are going to be manual and require practical knowledge and skill.

Ivreas your post with interest, about education a part of me agree with the online one, we must create a new way of learning now, and we are lucky to having internet, it's not a bad idea also because many schools and university only taking profits from not online lessons, I remembered a professor that forced all to join his lessons (very boring and un useful kessons) also if you were a student worker, and you can not try his exam if you miss two lessons I need did his exam because I always worked, and that's not right, so go on another way of educate, we must find a new way because as you say pandemia will have many ripercussion in the future, and I am so scared about it..

There are a lot of pros to having online training available, but I wonder if it is better for those who graduate, if the cost isn't significantly reduced to factor in the inflation of the number of graduates vying for positions.

I worked full-time through university also - it isn't easy :)

Education systems are employee creators and that is so a government can gather taxes.

This is why self education is never as much promoted as traditional education, where far too many go into debt only to stop learning after they have framed a beautiful expensive diploma

!ENGAGE 20

Thank you for your engagement on this post, you have recieved ENGAGE tokens.