Running head: FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY Essay 1 Education Technology: How Does it Affect the Purpose of Meritocracy and Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education? Nanyang Technological University OLIVIA TAN SP001 Writing and Reasoning Professor Justin Clark 1 FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 2 Cover Letter This cover letter addresses the points I intend to make in my essay “For Whom is University” and provides a brief explanation of the development of my thesis. The essay focuses primarily on the purpose of meritocratic equality of opportunity in education; and how a disregard for this would result in futility of education technologies, whether or not they have been created for the purpose of supporting meritocracy and equal opportunity. Perhaps most key is the way in which my thesis develops across time. What first started out as a realistic view of university’s purpose in society and its role in the job market soon transformed itself into something different. Having established the disparity between what university should do, can do, and actually does, I was able to take a closer look at why and how this has occurred. Apart from exploring the romantic notion of learning that was once the core of tertiary education, I managed to take a step further and explain how a shift in the education industry’s mindset towards a greater emphasis on meritocracy would result in the commercialization of knowledge. Research on the purpose of meritocratic equality of opportunity in education was done in the process of writing, which further enhanced the foundation of my essay and arrived at a conclusion in which my thesis could come to terms with. Sincerely, Olivia Tan FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 3 Meritocracy requires that positions and resources be distributed solely in accordance with individual merit. In the case of education, meritocratic equality of opportunity opposes arbitrary discrimination, such that arbitrary factors like race and gender are not considered in the distribution of knowledge. The rise of education technologies in recent years have the ability to enhance the practice of meritocratic equality of opportunity in education, yet the way in which it is perceived might, instead, result in a backfiring of education’s purpose. At its core, a university should provide guidance for students who are in the process of searching for selfknowledge and understanding of a world beyond their high school years. If this should be the primary purpose of higher education, do the technologies enhance or hinder the fulfilment of such a purpose? The latter option has become increasingly apparent in universities all across the world, manifesting in undergraduate students themselves. Once, I was asked if I knew how much I was paying the university per year. The answer did not occur to me, and the student who asked the question admitted the same before commenting, in a light-hearted manner, that we were probably wasting quite a sum of money spacing out in lectures instead of absorbing the knowledge. At the time then, my friend had responded by claiming that it did not matter as long as we got our respective degrees. A brief consideration of our attitudes towards higher education (its end being a mere degree) made us out to be mere consumers of practical knowledge; or so that was what I had concluded. As such, the role and purpose that meritocracy and equality of opportunity play in higher education remains quite in the dark. The practice of democracy in education stems from the idea that equal opportunity in a classroom context is key to allowing every student a fair chance to do academically well. By FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 4 extension then, every child should be entitled to his or her education, which, in other words, would require a greater affordability and accessibility of schooling than what it is as of now. Basic democratic pedagogy would therefore be expected to enhance the impartiality of education or ensure a balanced playing field for students to excel academically. Teachers often experience the difficulty of giving each of their thirty students an equal chance to express their opinions in class, and even if they do attempt to do so, time does not warrant a luxury as such. The education technology that Graeme Wood discusses serves to eliminate this exact problem by increasing student-tutor interaction. While “ordinary undergraduate seminars”1 identify lecturers seeking to interact with their students in a lecture-hall-setting as the bane of its existence, Minerva’s small class of eight students—each seated in front of their computer screens—ensures them a definite chance of voicing their stance and opinion towards every question posed. The method encourages reserved students to emerge from their shell and provides them with an impartial platform (a computer screen, in this case) to express their opinions. Consistent and direct advice offered on the spot by tutors correct misconceptions within seconds regardless of personality. The system thus wholly encompasses democratic pedagogy in that it ensures no one is left out or left behind. Apart from its potential to enhance the practice of democracy in a classroom setting, Minerva's ground-breaking system also emphasizes a “$30,000 savings over the sticker price of many (other) schools”2 that provide higher education, which goes beyond the nurturing of equal opportunity within the institute. The university also offers its students financial aid, primarily aimed at middle-class students who are unable to afford the hefty tuition fees that college mostly entails. By increasing the affordability of tertiary education and thereby extending the invitation to attend university to middle or lower class high school graduates, systems like Minerva propound FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 5 the practice of democracy to the rest of the industry and make university more accessible to the public. However, it is critical that we do not ignore the repercussions of Minerva's advanced pedagogy, which—although supportive of equal opportunity in the classroom and the industry— causes it to deviate from the purpose of education and thus cannot be said to entirely support it. After all, it is pointless for a means to achieve its end at the cost of its purpose. Wood points towards a restriction of creative space that is the result of Minerva’s system that forces students to focus on narrow issues at hand in order to answer a quiz question or articulate a position disallowing thoughtful consideration of other aspects of the material. If higher education was meant to broaden the perspective of one’s understanding of the world, educational technologies like Minerva’s certainly do not fulfil such a purpose. Moreover, education technologies do not necessarily provide the most conducive environment for meritocratic equality of opportunity either. Jill Lepore discusses the impact of disruptive innovation, a theory of change that is widespread across several industries and sectors of the economy. It features the commercialization of “arenas whose values and goals are remote from the values and goals of business”3, leading to public schools, universities and colleges being run like corporations; altogether creating a profit-making industry whereby the education of a student becomes a secondary goal. Disruption indicates the rise of universities like Minerva, which, despite having an efficient and democratic system of teaching, “operate for profit”4. Ben Nelson, the founder and CEO of Minerva, aims to “radically remake (in other words, disrupt) one of the most sclerotic sectors of the U.S. economy”5, which does not seem impossible with the inherently disruptive nature of Minerva’s system. Nelson wants a radical reform; an overhauling of traditional FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 6 pedagogy by introducing the education technology that is the basis of Minerva’s founding—but is this for the better? Not really. The emphasized focus on answering quiz questions correctly or consuming knowledge as a customer instead of pursuing knowledge for its own sake can potentially mislead students into thinking that learning is a means to an end; that end being a respectable career. To uncover how education technology is unable to truly support meritocratic equality of opportunity in education, we must direct our attention towards its initial purpose in relation to the latter. Since meritocracy is the holding of power by people selected on the basis of natural ability or ‘aptitude’, this would supposedly encourage students to work harder under the incentive of distinction. However, it must be noted that meritocracy should be used as a tool alongside the pursuit of knowledge in order to achieve the ideal education that a student should have. Because education technologies have the potential to encourage an unhealthy streak of extreme competitiveness in students (and does do so despite its other pros), it has caused the industry to stray further and further away from the original purpose of meritocracy in education. If we were to examine the purpose of a university education, we can look towards Andrew Delbanco, who discusses what university can and should bring to the plate as ‘higher education’ in his book “College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be”. He proposes that a university be a place where young men and women “find help for navigating the territory between adolescence and adulthood”6, maturing their fields of knowledge and organizing them in a way that would help them develop and learn as a human being. Primarily, higher education should aid the nurturing of the student’s mind and heart into that of a responsible, reflective adult and citizen—but as earlier examinations of educational technologies point towards, they are unlikely to allow universities to fulfil such a purpose. FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 7 Meritocracy requires that positions and resources be distributed solely in accordance with individual merit. How individual merit in education is assessed is simple: one’s intellectual capabilities. The underlying assumption here is that the way in which one is assessed (by their SAT scores, quizzes, exams) fully represents their abilities, ultimately breeding an unhealthy desire to get ahead of others and rise to the top. The advancement in education technology hinges on this very assumption—that the assessment is the end goal; the one and only judge. Here, we see a shift in the importance that one would place in the process of learning towards concrete evidences of success. The tension, then, boils down to what meritocracy in education aims to do, and how it has, in actuality, drifted far from this. While meritocracy was intended as the driving force of an educated and successful society, it has narrowed the minds of students to the primary concern of gaining public approval, hence deviating from what meritocracy in education was meant to do in the first place: motivate and incentivize students to do better. Moreover, this deviation from meritocracy’s prime purpose in education can be further exacerbated by education technologies. Although these reformed education systems enhance a student’s experience of equal opportunity in the classroom, it skews their perception of knowledge and instills in universities an unhealthy concept of commercialization—churning out degree holders that are ‘socially-useful’ and employable; and by doing so attract more undergraduates into their program. However, the value of knowledge does not lie solely upon its utility and the fostering of such a belief by universities eliminates mankind’s natural desire for knowledge with no practical purpose; knowing for the sake of knowing7. Yet, the increasing commercialization of higher education by these technologies see the rise of universities being run like corporations, whereby students (and their families) are customers. It is clear that knowledge then becomes an FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 8 instrument, learnt only for its practical use and perhaps even sold for specific purposes, such as getting a job after graduation. The draw of university has changed in such a way that it is demanded only because it bestows upon undergraduate students a fancy piece of paper that unlocks doors to a brighter future and gives one a higher chance of respectable employment. The fact that students are not only attending university to get their hands on a degree but also opting for a course that is practical or likely to be in demand by the job market (“Philosophy? What are you going to do with that?”) points towards a nearing extinction of the idea that college should be a place to develop lifetime foundational knowledge. The increasing stress on practicality furthered by education technologies thus discourages gaining knowledge for the sake of itself. As cynical and pessimistic as it may sound, it appears that our current universities are catered towards society as a collective—meeting demands of the job market—and not the individual himself. There is a disparity between who we think university is for and who it is actually for. The romantic notion of learning for the sake of increasing one's understanding is no longer practiced. Instead of making education a diverse and interactive environment where one challenges known assumptions and probes mysterious realms of thought, it has become one where the same topics are taught repetitively every year, making students cynical and unconcerned about real learning. Somewhere along the way, our generation has lost sight of the true purpose of university and its role in providing higher education for those who wish to be educated. Meritocratic equality of opportunity can be supported and enhanced in our current age by new technology and ideas, but whether or not this potential is fulfilled depends on what purpose it is set out to achieve in the first place. If the purpose of meritocracy and equal opportunity in education is disregarded, then perhaps there is much rethinking to do about the existence of these education technologies. FOR WHOM IS UNIVERSITY 9 Notes 1 Graeme Wood, “The Future of College?”, The Atlantic, August 13, 2014, 1. 2 Wood, “The Future of College?”, The Atlantic, August 13, 2014, 2. 3 Jill Lepore, “The Disruption Machine: What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrongs”, The New Yorker, June 23, 2014, 16 4 Wood, “The Future of College?”, The Atlantic, August 13, 2014, 2. 5 Wood, “The Future of College?”, The Atlantic, August 13, 2014, 1. 6 Andrew Delbanco, “College: What it was, is, and should be”, Princeton University Press, 2014. 7 Ross, William D, “Aristotle's metaphysics”, 1925.
