# Changing concepts of universities


Something that I have thought about a lot lately, is changing concepts
of what a university is, and how it works. Some of the reasons that I
have been thinking so much about this stems from the idea of elite
universities in North America. They have always been fascinating to me,
because I come from a country with only five universities, all of them
in their own cities, and roughly equal in quality - you choose the
university based on the city you want to live in, and not the quality of
the courses. (They are also fully publically funded, etc.). They are
certainly quality institutions, but what I always wondered was; what has
Harvard got, that makes it so much better? And also, thinking of
developing countries; why is it so hard to have stellar institutions?
Especially for the humanities and social sciences, it would seem that
the most important aspect is the teachers - and since teachers are much
cheaper in developing countries, that should achievable.

(Of course brain drain is one factor, I realized later. But that is far
from the full answer.)

So I started thinking about which parts of Harvard, or Yale, make them
so stellar. (Especially from the perspective of undergraduate teaching,
not research). And with the advent of technology, these thoughts
intensified. If the reason Harvard is so good is the library, and we
have that library available online - then what? If the reason is the
courses, and we can do the courses online? If the reason is the tight
student relationships, and we can imitate that?

The Economist has advocated for splitting up the teaching and the
testing part of for example Oxford or Yale; letting everyone in the
world do the same tests. So that, I could study bioengineering in
Vietnam, but still do the rigorous sample of MIT tests (perhaps
including essays and projects), paid for of course at a competitive
rate, and if I succeeded I would receive an MIT diploma completely
equivalent to the one that MIT students get. Thus, MIT the teaching
institution would have to focus on provable excellency in teaching, not
on whom they accept and the reputation of their institution. It’s a
fascinating idea for “democratizing” education (one of course fraught
with dangers, if educational evaluation becomes reduced to multiple
choice tests at all levels), and one which MIT would surely fight
against. They seem to do the opposite - the MIT OpenCourseWare project
provides access to much of their teaching material, sometimes even video
or audio of their lectures, for free to anyone in the world. BUT - they
will never lead you to get an MIT certification. You can get our
teaching, but not our degree.

Stian\
 (sorry, no sources - no time; ask me)