[OCW Meta-University] Progress on the OCWC Meta-University --A 1stDraft (Working Towards a Grant Proposal)

Fri Feb 15 11:38:00 MST 2008

Alec:  I was not very specific in my comments.  As I recall, WGU was started in about 1996 or earlier.  It promised to enroll 100,000 students in less than 5 years and would issue its own degrees independent of existing institutions.  It was to be entirely outcome based in its student assessments and degree granting.  I have not kept up with WGU but do know that it has been successful in enrolling and serving many students.  But I do think that its early promises were overblown and that both its academic and business model changed over the years.  As we consider the meta-university concept I think we should understand the history of WGU –what worked and what did not work and how things evolved.  What I am reacting to is the early concepts of the meta-university which seem to share some of the breathlessness that accompanied WGU’s early days.  I apologize for what might seem a negative generality with regard to WGU.  Again, I was just reacting to the early concepts rather than the current reality.  Gary

From: ocwmu-bounces at ocwconsortium.org [mailto:ocwmu-bounces at ocwconsortium.org] On Behalf Of Alec Testa
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:23 AM
To: OCW Meta-University
Subject: Re: [OCW Meta-University] Progress on the OCWC Meta-University --A 1stDraft (Working Towards a Grant Proposal)

Why is WGU a failure?

We just got a ten year reaffirmation of our regional accreditation and we have 10,000 students.

Alec

-----Original Message-----
From: "Gary Matkin" <Gary.Matkin at unx.uci.edu>
To: "OCW Meta-University" <ocwmu at ocwconsortium.org>
Sent: 2/15/08 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [OCW Meta-University] Progress on the OCWC Meta-University -- A    1stDraft (Working Towards a Grant Proposal)

Dear OCWC Meta-University Team:

While I like the idea of tackling big issues and big projects, the main issue I see with the rough draft of the Meta-University project is that it is too big, too diffuse, and un-implementable without a considerable narrowing of scope.  There is an inherent problem in serving the whole world with an educational treatment.  Put briefly: one size does not fit all.  Or even more to the point: a single treatment may not serve everyone.  The idea that a set of 15-25 courses developed, even at high quality, could effectively serve students from around the world is an intellectual shell game.  We have a number of examples where the  underlying concept of this project (the collection of a set of high-quality courses authored by the top academics and well-renowned universities) has failed.  These failures include Universitas 21, Unext (or Cardian University), and, I would say, WGU.  Any set of courses would have to have extensive “localization” and translation services associated with them, which, in turn, would demand a considerable and dispersed infrastructure.  I could raise other issues (and will in a subsequent paper) but let me say what I think is possible.

First, we should narrow the scope of this project and reduce the variables by being more targeted in our intended audience.  If the more general concept is going to work it will work only with the buy-in of other organizations, including governments.  Further, many potential funders have narrower, country-specific funding objects.  So, my suggestion is that we start by identifying a need in say, a country (Sri Lanka, for instance) that might attract funding.  We could do a set of courses, document the process, and then go on to other countries.  In each case we would have to:

1.       Identify a specific need and a well-defined audience;

2.       Identify potential funding sources for that need/audience;

3.       Identify organizations, agencies, or individuals who could help with localization, translation, inclusion of indigenous knowledge;

4.       Identify the authentication body (institution that will grant to degree); and

5.       Establish a plan for a continuously supportive infrastructure.

Gary W. Matkin
Dean, Continuing Education
P.O. Box 6050, Irvine CA 92616
(949) 824-5525 voice
(949) 824-2742 fax
gmatkin at uci.edu
<http://unex.uci.edu> <http://unex.uci.edu/> 

From: ocwmu-bounces at ocwconsortium.org [mailto:ocwmu-bounces at ocwconsortium.org] On Behalf Of John Dehlin
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:21 PM
To: OCW Meta-University
Subject: [OCW Meta-University] Progress on the OCWC Meta-University -- A 1stDraft (Working Towards a Grant Proposal)

OCWC Meta-University Team,

I've been in touch with many of you to discuss your thoughts on the OCW Meta-University project -- which has culminated in a very early draft document on the OCWC Meta-University project <http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df9f5w7f_1fcmr9hfz> .

We are looking to shape this draft document into some type of grant proposal on behalf of the OCWC over the next few weeks and months -- so we would love your feedback on the document as soon as you can provide it.

Please let us know your thoughts/feedback -- and I look forward to working with you all to make this one of our main OCWC priorities over the next few months and years.

-- 
John Dehlin

OpenCourseWare Consortium Director
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
OCWC Web Site: http://www.ocwconsortium.org

Phone: 435 881-4419 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ocwconsortium.org/pipermail/ocwmu_ocwconsortium.org/attachments/20080215/675e4e74/attachment.html 