n October 18, 2019 and on November 14, 2019 respectively, Lebanon and Hong Kong closed all their schools for safety reasons. This was more than two months before they reported their first coronavirus case. In both cases, the reason for school closures was the escalating violence of anti-government protests. Not coincidentally, both countries, despite the gap in their digital readiness, were relatively efficient in transitioning to remote teaching come February 2020 when they had to re-close their academic institutions for entirely different reasons.
As worldwide school closures impact over 91% of all students (as of April 17) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a disparate range of remote teaching—and to a lesser extent, learning—occurred all over the globe. Academic institutions, even those most reluctant, were jolted into finding solutions for delivering instruction. The disruption was so rapid and pervasive that the general wisdom seems to be that there is no turning back; that education has been changed forever, maybe even despite the efforts of institutional leaders.
Having had many discussions with various academic institutions locally and globally, I know that while many are well-intentioned, they have moved their lecture from the lecture hall to a video conferencing hall. They are basically teaching in the same way they have taught for centuries, only using a more modern and digital venue. For many teachers and learners, the experience has been disastrous and they will likely vow never to return to these impoverished, virtual rooms, once they can go back to their well-lit, spacious lecture halls.
A small minority of universities, however, will not waste the opening this crisis provides. They will use it to intrinsically transform the education they are delivering, not being satisfied with recreating an ineffective offline system in an online context. Instead, they will reform their institutions to become more student-centric with a crystallized focus on learning outcomes. They will revise their curricula and their pedagogical approach. They will take a keen look at which skills they intend to impart to their students based on how these will help them become good decision-makers for an unpredictable, and evidently unprepared, world. This reform may be driven by university presidents who always had the intention to transform their institutions but could not garner enough support, or by deans who were already working to evolve their divisions, but never had the political capital to influence their entire organizations.
Let us be clear: this moment calls for complete institutional reform. Now is the time to redesign curricula, eliminating superfluous courses that have been added organically over the years. Now is the time to build intentional scaffolds, which combine the richness of interdisciplinary breadth with field-specific mastery and individual choice. Now is the time to establish sustained partnerships with the public, private, and social sectors to ensure we are able to graduate more informed, more engaged, more productive citizens in ways that are accessible to all citizens.
Turning back to the majority, most institutions will re-open and attempt to operate as they were. Many will suffer from dire financial challenges, only to be propped up by stimulus packages. They will be burdened by tuition refunds and lower enrollment numbers. They will struggle to attract international students, whose tuition is an important revenue generator. They will survive, holding on until the next crisis hits. Whether it is civil unrest, another pandemic, or some other calamity. Then the cycle will repeat, until this unstable economic model can no longer be supported.
Meanwhile, those that chose to adapt, to focus on students and their outcomes, will have graduated a different breed of learners, whose skills and mindsets enable them to contribute meaningfully to society. They will produce graduates who have been intentionally trained to make decisions of consequences, whose employers are impressed, not disappointed, by the value they add. Those that embraced this challenge, that invested the time, effort, and capital to truly reform, will have made themselves more sustainable and equitable, and their learners more resilient and engaged.
This crisis is shining a light on the nature of universities and which of two camps they fall into. The majority, unfortunately, will be focused on institutional preservation and through that focus continue to retreat from their educational mission and from long-term sustainability. Yet others will demonstrate a commitment to reinvigorating their educational mission. The latter choose to reform—whether that means an online, campus-based, or hybrid delivery model—and will see that putting their students first will ultimately preserve their institutions in the long run.
a global affairs media network
A Tale of Two Universities
May 20, 2020
O
n October 18, 2019 and on November 14, 2019 respectively, Lebanon and Hong Kong closed all their schools for safety reasons. This was more than two months before they reported their first coronavirus case. In both cases, the reason for school closures was the escalating violence of anti-government protests. Not coincidentally, both countries, despite the gap in their digital readiness, were relatively efficient in transitioning to remote teaching come February 2020 when they had to re-close their academic institutions for entirely different reasons.
As worldwide school closures impact over 91% of all students (as of April 17) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a disparate range of remote teaching—and to a lesser extent, learning—occurred all over the globe. Academic institutions, even those most reluctant, were jolted into finding solutions for delivering instruction. The disruption was so rapid and pervasive that the general wisdom seems to be that there is no turning back; that education has been changed forever, maybe even despite the efforts of institutional leaders.
Having had many discussions with various academic institutions locally and globally, I know that while many are well-intentioned, they have moved their lecture from the lecture hall to a video conferencing hall. They are basically teaching in the same way they have taught for centuries, only using a more modern and digital venue. For many teachers and learners, the experience has been disastrous and they will likely vow never to return to these impoverished, virtual rooms, once they can go back to their well-lit, spacious lecture halls.
A small minority of universities, however, will not waste the opening this crisis provides. They will use it to intrinsically transform the education they are delivering, not being satisfied with recreating an ineffective offline system in an online context. Instead, they will reform their institutions to become more student-centric with a crystallized focus on learning outcomes. They will revise their curricula and their pedagogical approach. They will take a keen look at which skills they intend to impart to their students based on how these will help them become good decision-makers for an unpredictable, and evidently unprepared, world. This reform may be driven by university presidents who always had the intention to transform their institutions but could not garner enough support, or by deans who were already working to evolve their divisions, but never had the political capital to influence their entire organizations.
Let us be clear: this moment calls for complete institutional reform. Now is the time to redesign curricula, eliminating superfluous courses that have been added organically over the years. Now is the time to build intentional scaffolds, which combine the richness of interdisciplinary breadth with field-specific mastery and individual choice. Now is the time to establish sustained partnerships with the public, private, and social sectors to ensure we are able to graduate more informed, more engaged, more productive citizens in ways that are accessible to all citizens.
Turning back to the majority, most institutions will re-open and attempt to operate as they were. Many will suffer from dire financial challenges, only to be propped up by stimulus packages. They will be burdened by tuition refunds and lower enrollment numbers. They will struggle to attract international students, whose tuition is an important revenue generator. They will survive, holding on until the next crisis hits. Whether it is civil unrest, another pandemic, or some other calamity. Then the cycle will repeat, until this unstable economic model can no longer be supported.
Meanwhile, those that chose to adapt, to focus on students and their outcomes, will have graduated a different breed of learners, whose skills and mindsets enable them to contribute meaningfully to society. They will produce graduates who have been intentionally trained to make decisions of consequences, whose employers are impressed, not disappointed, by the value they add. Those that embraced this challenge, that invested the time, effort, and capital to truly reform, will have made themselves more sustainable and equitable, and their learners more resilient and engaged.
This crisis is shining a light on the nature of universities and which of two camps they fall into. The majority, unfortunately, will be focused on institutional preservation and through that focus continue to retreat from their educational mission and from long-term sustainability. Yet others will demonstrate a commitment to reinvigorating their educational mission. The latter choose to reform—whether that means an online, campus-based, or hybrid delivery model—and will see that putting their students first will ultimately preserve their institutions in the long run.
