I used to have some real problems with Justin Bieber.
Time after time, I cursed him as I tried to download documents to my phones. Even with two blackberries on two different networks, I could be within the national beltway and still struggle with one bar... waiting and waiting for signal. And it was all his fault. After witnessing my niece and countless other young ladies streaming Bieber videos to their phones, I held the Beebs personally responsible for my delays. His fans are hogging our bandwidth.
Recent events have me feeling a lot more positive about the Beebs. Thanks in large part to him, there is an impending mobile bandwidth crisis in America... and that is a good thing. It will create jobs.
Currently, the smartphone market is white hot in the US; hundreds of thousands of adoring iPhone fans are lined up on sidewalks awaiting the latest gadget. This telemania (sorry, that's the best I could think of) isn't really stimulating the economy- most of those devices are manufactured abroad. Sure, there are a few sales jobs, some of us can profit by the stock, and somewhere within the halls of Apple and Google, some very clever and high-paid engineers are designing next-generation products that will speak even more directly to our pleasure centers. But these jobs are few and far between- we don't see iPhone assembly lines popping up in Detroit, for example. That's a problem.
Another factor to consider is that Apple and Google have huge amounts of cash collecting dust; yes, they must finance some R&D and marketing, but there are significant fractions of a trillion dollars awaiting a strategy. I believe that strategy will reveal itself very soon.
In terms of jobs growth, the impending bandwidth crisis could be very good for America. We have to remember that the US has a very widely distributed population, and coverage is already spotty in many areas, even at 3G levels. The mobile market needs more bandwidth- much, much more.
Here is some data indicating the problem that the US faces:
US and Canada Drop in Broadband Penetration Worldwide - January 2012 Bandwidth Report
What does it mean? Well, first of all, notice that most of the nations ahead of us have much higher population density, so the comparison isn't quite fair. Higher population density implies better coverage and more bandwidth per dollar invested in telecom infrastructure. A fairer comparison might be, for example, the state of New York. Nevertheless, it is clear that we need a lot more infrastructure to support bandwidth and coverage.
This population density chart reveals quite clearly where the mobile market can be expected to grow most rapidly:
Global Population Density Map
.. the US. The slow access across the US points to an urgent need for new infrastructure to support coverage and bandwidth. Hence, I expect that the strategy behind the hoarding of cash by the likes of Apple and Google will very soon end: to compete, they must take a real stake in improving internet access across the country. And their interest in making the big investments should be juiced by the appearance of inflation, spiked by QE and lack of leadership on the debt problem in Congress (apparently, the brilliant strategy is simply to inflate ourselves out of our debt problem, but I digress). Reflation should, theoretically, encourage a transformation of cash into physical assets. You don't let billions of dollars inflate into vapor- you invest it in stock and hard assets.
So... I have come to terms with Bieber. Thanks to him, we need more coverage and more bandwidth- a lot more. The business case is clear, and the cash to make it happen is there. And so, finally, we should begin to see domestic jobs growth associated with a need for real, physical infrastructure in the US- akin to our need for highways and railways in prior times. While the iPhones and other devices themselves don't create any sustained jobs, our hunger for bandwidth certainly will.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Edu-Zynga, the Current #MOOC Business Model?
While there is much discussion in higher ed circles about the potential for profit from MOOCs, the companies hosting them have yet to provide a clear business model. Based on some fairly simple observations, I expect that #MOOCs will ultimately earn ~zero net profit for most schools that partner with these companies. Here is one of the reasons why.
Most of the current MOOCs cover intro "101" material. If we peruse the offerings at, e.g., Coursera, it is easy to see that this is the case:
Coursera Course Offerings
That MOOCs target intro material makes perfect sense; after all, those offering MOOCs want to demonstrate just how massive the courses can be, so they are typically picking intro-level material with broad appeal. So, offhand, one might think it clever to use MOOCs as a substitute for some of the 101 courses. Students don't like to sit in stadium courses anyway, right? And from the school's perspective, if they can MOOC out the 101 courses, it should decrease their instructional costs.
[Never mind that instructional cost has less to do with tuition inflation than administration and facilities overhead... but I digress]
After taking a MOOC, if students need exams, a school could charge, say, $100... and that would be a bargain compared to the typical $200-$400 per credit hour that most students pay. Or, a school could generously permit students to take a free exam and proceed to more advanced coursework if they pass. A similar policy already exists at some schools, where if students pass a final exam in a course, they earn credit or at least bypass the course. Sort of like a CLEP. That's nothing new and it could work perfectly well with MOOCs. So far so good.
However, there is a worrisome catch-22 that continues to escape the notice of the giddy throng, who continue to believe that MOOCs will address the financial problems of higher ed. The problem is that intro courses are by *far* the most profitable for a school to host: they have the largest ratio of students to instructors. If we do the math, we see that intro courses are enormously profitable. And note that because the cost per credit is approximately the same for all courses at a school, the student pays approximately the same for an intro course as an advanced course; however, the school pays far, far more to host an advanced course.
So... if you really want to profit from MOOCs, it seems that you actually want them to cover advanced topics for which student-teacher ratio is too small to pay for the instructor. Schools should certainly not want MOOCs to cannibalize their introductory course enrollment. And note, advanced courses are typically taught by the more expensive tenure-track faculty. The paradox is that lower enrollment also implies that those courses are less likely to be offered as a MOOC. It's hard to herd 100,000 people into a rigorous grad-level course on general relativity or whatever.
In summary, the numbers don't (yet) add up, and yes, at this point, adoption of MOOCs appears to be more about egalitarianism, greater access for all, getting your school's good name out there, and testing the waters etc.
I do think there are a number of wonderful attributes of MOOCs, by the way. Developing countries lacking higher ed infrastructure should find them particularly valuable. And MOOCs do offer the possibility of connecting a more diverse pool of students with fresher material and perhaps multiple, diverse instructors. Those are wonderful things, for sure. But those of us who actually invest ourselves in higher ed do need to think carefully about fiscal sustainability and how to preserve the core value in our schools.
Will MOOCs ever make substantial money for anybody? Well... that hasn't actually been demonstrated yet. Right now, the MOOC business model that people are proposing is basically edu-Zynga: charge a lot of people a buck or two and they'll hardly notice. The problem with this business model is that it has no growth: sure, you get an initial swarm of interest, but then *pop*... what was that stock price at IPO?? It's a far, far cry from the slow and steady growth that investors have come to expect from the premier higher ed investments.
I expect VC people to lose interest in MOOCs very quickly, unless a more elaborate business model presents itself. Edu-Zynga won't cut it... not for long.
Most of the current MOOCs cover intro "101" material. If we peruse the offerings at, e.g., Coursera, it is easy to see that this is the case:
Coursera Course Offerings
That MOOCs target intro material makes perfect sense; after all, those offering MOOCs want to demonstrate just how massive the courses can be, so they are typically picking intro-level material with broad appeal. So, offhand, one might think it clever to use MOOCs as a substitute for some of the 101 courses. Students don't like to sit in stadium courses anyway, right? And from the school's perspective, if they can MOOC out the 101 courses, it should decrease their instructional costs.
[Never mind that instructional cost has less to do with tuition inflation than administration and facilities overhead... but I digress]
After taking a MOOC, if students need exams, a school could charge, say, $100... and that would be a bargain compared to the typical $200-$400 per credit hour that most students pay. Or, a school could generously permit students to take a free exam and proceed to more advanced coursework if they pass. A similar policy already exists at some schools, where if students pass a final exam in a course, they earn credit or at least bypass the course. Sort of like a CLEP. That's nothing new and it could work perfectly well with MOOCs. So far so good.
However, there is a worrisome catch-22 that continues to escape the notice of the giddy throng, who continue to believe that MOOCs will address the financial problems of higher ed. The problem is that intro courses are by *far* the most profitable for a school to host: they have the largest ratio of students to instructors. If we do the math, we see that intro courses are enormously profitable. And note that because the cost per credit is approximately the same for all courses at a school, the student pays approximately the same for an intro course as an advanced course; however, the school pays far, far more to host an advanced course.
So... if you really want to profit from MOOCs, it seems that you actually want them to cover advanced topics for which student-teacher ratio is too small to pay for the instructor. Schools should certainly not want MOOCs to cannibalize their introductory course enrollment. And note, advanced courses are typically taught by the more expensive tenure-track faculty. The paradox is that lower enrollment also implies that those courses are less likely to be offered as a MOOC. It's hard to herd 100,000 people into a rigorous grad-level course on general relativity or whatever.
In summary, the numbers don't (yet) add up, and yes, at this point, adoption of MOOCs appears to be more about egalitarianism, greater access for all, getting your school's good name out there, and testing the waters etc.
I do think there are a number of wonderful attributes of MOOCs, by the way. Developing countries lacking higher ed infrastructure should find them particularly valuable. And MOOCs do offer the possibility of connecting a more diverse pool of students with fresher material and perhaps multiple, diverse instructors. Those are wonderful things, for sure. But those of us who actually invest ourselves in higher ed do need to think carefully about fiscal sustainability and how to preserve the core value in our schools.
Will MOOCs ever make substantial money for anybody? Well... that hasn't actually been demonstrated yet. Right now, the MOOC business model that people are proposing is basically edu-Zynga: charge a lot of people a buck or two and they'll hardly notice. The problem with this business model is that it has no growth: sure, you get an initial swarm of interest, but then *pop*... what was that stock price at IPO?? It's a far, far cry from the slow and steady growth that investors have come to expect from the premier higher ed investments.
I expect VC people to lose interest in MOOCs very quickly, unless a more elaborate business model presents itself. Edu-Zynga won't cut it... not for long.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Free Information & the Future of Higher Ed
The Chronicle of Education recently described some attempt by publishers to gain profit from MOOCs (massively open online courses) by producing textbooks for them:
I find this rather amusing.
First of all, there is so little to be made from authoring textbooks now... what's the point.
Second, I have already taught four different courses without a textbook, simply because no suitable texts existed; e.g. intro nanophysics, physics of energy, physics of the human body, and history of physics. This created no problems for the students; on the contrary, most of them seemed grateful.
Yes, when teaching without a textbook, one has to spend more time assembling reading lists and articles, but students can participate in that, and it's a good exercise for them to learn how to identify reliable sources.
The bottom line, which continues to evade some of my colleagues in higher ed, is that information is basically free now. Those who try to attach cost to it are simply in the wrong decade, fighting the wrong battle. Wake up and smell the terabytes. Higher ed is not about attaching cost to information any more: students can download information. But take heed: students cannot download the experiences that motivate them most. Institutions that realize this and emphasize experiential education will prosper; those that don't will fail.
The bottom line, which continues to evade some of my colleagues in higher ed, is that information is basically free now. Those who try to attach cost to it are simply in the wrong decade, fighting the wrong battle. Wake up and smell the terabytes. Higher ed is not about attaching cost to information any more: students can download information. But take heed: students cannot download the experiences that motivate them most. Institutions that realize this and emphasize experiential education will prosper; those that don't will fail.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Sequestration Effects
I am having a first look at the White House / OMB document which proposes the distribution of sequestration cuts.
Here is a link to the document (warning, it's a ~400 page pdf):
OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155)
Overall, it is clear that Federal contractors will be slammed very hard, across the board. We might see some reaction in the next few days, as businesses begin to project the toll. One has to remember that a cut in Federal labor often corresponds to a much larger contractor cut; we saw this recently during the recent FAA budget debacle.
The OMB document provides precious little specific detail; one merely sees, for example, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stands to lose $2.5B (see page 82 of the OMB document linked above). The agencies and contractors need much more detail, and there will be much more preparatory work required within individual agencies over the coming weeks.
I expect all contractors to take a very large hit, and it appears that Federal and State (VA, MD) credit downgrades appear almost unavoidable at this point.
From an investment perspective, I would steer well clear of contractors to federal agencies. Here is a link to the top 100 federal contractors, in terms of net contract value:
Washington Technology 2012 Top 100 Contractor Rankings
Here is the top ten, from this link, arranged in terms of 2012 rank / name / net contract value / prior rank:
Here is a link to the document (warning, it's a ~400 page pdf):
OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155)
Overall, it is clear that Federal contractors will be slammed very hard, across the board. We might see some reaction in the next few days, as businesses begin to project the toll. One has to remember that a cut in Federal labor often corresponds to a much larger contractor cut; we saw this recently during the recent FAA budget debacle.
The OMB document provides precious little specific detail; one merely sees, for example, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stands to lose $2.5B (see page 82 of the OMB document linked above). The agencies and contractors need much more detail, and there will be much more preparatory work required within individual agencies over the coming weeks.
I expect all contractors to take a very large hit, and it appears that Federal and State (VA, MD) credit downgrades appear almost unavoidable at this point.
From an investment perspective, I would steer well clear of contractors to federal agencies. Here is a link to the top 100 federal contractors, in terms of net contract value:
Washington Technology 2012 Top 100 Contractor Rankings
Here is the top ten, from this link, arranged in terms of 2012 rank / name / net contract value / prior rank:
| 1 | Lockheed Martin Corp. | $17,438,128,000 | 1 |
| 2 | Northrop Grumman Corp. | $9,143,329,000 | 2 |
| 3 | Boeing Co. | $7,455,878,000 | 3 |
| 4 | SAIC | $5,938,089,000 | 6 |
| 5 | Raytheon Co. | $5,665,503,000 | 4 |
| 6 | General Dynamics Corp. | $5,461,177,000 | 5 |
| 7 | Hewlett-Packard Co. | $4,113,135,000 | 7 |
| 8 | Booz Allen Hamilton | $3,848,819,000 | 9 |
| 9 | Computer Sciences Corp. | $3,569,443,000 | 11 |
| 10 | DynCorp International | $3,346,227,000 | 12 |
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Lament of a Conservative Academic
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently published an article on hyperbole in the sciences, which touched a frayed nerve with me:
Scientists Are Often Responsible for ‘Spin’ of Their Results, Research Finds
As a frequent reviewer for journal articles and proposals for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other funding agencies and sponsors, I frequently see the art of exaggeration used to great effect. This isn't surprising when you consider how much harder it is to publish an article or secure funding, in recent times. With so many more competitors in the market and stagnant funding levels...
I keep thinking that I should compile some of the most egregious spin / hype, and publish it for amusement, but of course it is not appropriate to retain any materials from a proposal or article under review, and much of that material never makes it past the editor or program officer and a few referees.
In my (former?) field of nanoscience, the hype level is/was particularly extreme, which I believe contributed significantly to the atmosphere that gave us Jan Hendrik Schön and many others who engage(d) in hyperbole. The sad thing is that those of us who value long-term credibility more than short-term funding are at a severe disadvantage to the hypers and spinners... and outright liars.
Journals and sponsors definitely do not favor cautious and conservative wording; they don't want statements like "we think we have a good chance to construct a new type of transistor with exciting new properties..." Instead, they want "we are very confident that this new transistor will revolutionize the industry..." and cure cancer etc. ! So either you give them what they want or you don't get funded or published. Take your pick.
Scientists Are Often Responsible for ‘Spin’ of Their Results, Research Finds
As a frequent reviewer for journal articles and proposals for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other funding agencies and sponsors, I frequently see the art of exaggeration used to great effect. This isn't surprising when you consider how much harder it is to publish an article or secure funding, in recent times. With so many more competitors in the market and stagnant funding levels...
I keep thinking that I should compile some of the most egregious spin / hype, and publish it for amusement, but of course it is not appropriate to retain any materials from a proposal or article under review, and much of that material never makes it past the editor or program officer and a few referees.
In my (former?) field of nanoscience, the hype level is/was particularly extreme, which I believe contributed significantly to the atmosphere that gave us Jan Hendrik Schön and many others who engage(d) in hyperbole. The sad thing is that those of us who value long-term credibility more than short-term funding are at a severe disadvantage to the hypers and spinners... and outright liars.
Journals and sponsors definitely do not favor cautious and conservative wording; they don't want statements like "we think we have a good chance to construct a new type of transistor with exciting new properties..." Instead, they want "we are very confident that this new transistor will revolutionize the industry..." and cure cancer etc. ! So either you give them what they want or you don't get funded or published. Take your pick.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
More Doom and Gloom for Higher Ed
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently noted an alarming report in the New York Times:
"Many borrowers are struggling to pay off their student loans, and the debt collection industry is cashing in. As the number of people taking out government-backed student loans has exploded, so has the number who have fallen at least 12 months behind in making payments — about 5.9 million people nationwide, up about a third in the last five years."
The full NYT article may be accessed here.
For American college students, the situation could get a lot worse before it gets better. The relevant lending rates have been at artificial lows for several years... and not just the Stafford rate, a well-controlled subsidy that only carries a fraction of overall debt among our young people. Of far greater concern are those lending rates related to long-term bonds: the 10- and 30-year yields are subject to market whim. A big bounce off those artificially low yields is inevitable, and the timing could be very cruel for our unemployed and underemployed young people.
There are several reasons to anticipate a bond reversal:
* First, the Fed's "Twist" program is winding down, and any extensions will have diminished effect; the next round of QE will have some diminished effect on bonds and seems more likely to force investment into stocks and commodities as investors seek a hedge against inevitable inflation here and in China and the Eurozone;
* Second, the Eurozone will solve its issues (by hook or by crook) and that will be the end of the flight to safety in US bonds... if this is starting to happen, we'll see it in continued reduced in Spanish and Italian yields as soon as next week;
* Third, core fiscal issues and Washington's procrastination will make US debt far less attractive overall, and could easily lead to Federal and State downgrades. Translation: the cost of borrowing is about to go up for everyone. When we see encouraging headlines about the recovery of the US housing market, we have to remember the other side of the coin: the financial industry needs lending rates and - rest assured- will eventually get them;
* Fourth, many equities related to manufacturing (auto, aluminum, housing) have been stagnant for some time, with several *trillion* dollars of investment on the sidelines due to prevailing uncertainty. Corporations and investment firms do not yet see the signal to take risk. When that money comes back on the table, the bond market will lose its allure, sending yields back up to realistic levels. Likewise the commodities markets, which are now coming back... by act of God (drought) and by act of Fed (more QE).
The timing of all of this is the cruel part for our young people. Bond yields will rise well before the job market recovers: the market works on speculation and knows very well where things are headed. So we could see a lot of these things unfold long before the jobs are created, leading to an increase in loan defaults. These effects will of course be most extreme among those students who don't have mom and dad's mortgage to bail them out... i.e. it will disproportionately affect underprivileged students.
So there is continued crisis ahead for our young people. And yet we see ~zero strategy posited by our colleges and universities... no responsibility taken to help students reduce cost and to find employment and clear out that debt before the market comes calling. It's as if higher ed actually *wants* full-scale bubble implosion and federal intervention.
...on top of which, some politicians actually think it's a great idea to herd more students into this dysfunctional debt cycle. Ah don't get me started ;)
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Inflation in American Higher Ed
Statistics like this are what have many of us involved with higher ed feeling queasy. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, John Pelletier reports:
"The College Board reports that from 1981 to 2011, after adjusting for inflation, the average published cost of going to college is up 180% for private, nonprofit four-year colleges and 268% for in-state, public four-year colleges."
Note that this is after adjusting for inflation. Pelletier's article provides a succinct review of many other alarming stats as well:
J. Pelletier / Wall Street Journal: Why go to college if I can't get a job?
Despite the higher ed cost bubble, it is still important to recognize the historical value of a college degree, as Pelletier notes:
"The Economic Policy Institute study shows that the recent unemployment rate for high school graduates between age 17 and 20 who aren't enrolled in additional schooling is 31.1%. And their underemployment rate is 50.4%."
"The College Board reports that from 1981 to 2011, after adjusting for inflation, the average published cost of going to college is up 180% for private, nonprofit four-year colleges and 268% for in-state, public four-year colleges."
Note that this is after adjusting for inflation. Pelletier's article provides a succinct review of many other alarming stats as well:
J. Pelletier / Wall Street Journal: Why go to college if I can't get a job?
Despite the higher ed cost bubble, it is still important to recognize the historical value of a college degree, as Pelletier notes:
"The Economic Policy Institute study shows that the recent unemployment rate for high school graduates between age 17 and 20 who aren't enrolled in additional schooling is 31.1%. And their underemployment rate is 50.4%."
Friday, September 7, 2012
The Cost of MOOCs
Many of us await clear answers on the cost of MOOCs- the massively open online courses that have been in higher ed news of late.
Startup companies like Coursera have not been forthcoming with their business models. Perhaps they don't need to, yet: there has been a huge splurge of venture capital because investors see higher ed as an enormous cash cow. Indeed, higher ed is a very remunerative business- even for non-profit schools. Just the loan finance business associated with higher ed is a multi-billion dollar market, annually.
The question is, how much do MOOCs cost? The obvious expenses associated with producing quality MOOCs are for instructors, software and media production, quality control, cost of assignments and proctoring exams, and accreditation- whatever form that might take if actual credit is to be awarded. many of these costs are unknown at this point, because they courses are being offered in experimental, ad hoc manner. There isn't enough data to compute real net costs.
Apart from that, even if a MOOC itself is cost-free, it could still have *huge* financial impact in higher ed, because much of the material that MOOCs deliver is also being taught in our colleges. The most obvious overlap is in the intro coursework. For those classes, the case for a well-executed MOOC is quite good: the class sizes are already large and much of the material could benefit by a periodic reboot. But note: the large intro classes are also some of the very most profitable for a college: they have a large enrollment, a very large ratio of students to instructors, and typically require very little overhead expenditure relative to the other courses.
One cost that has not been addressed at all, in my view, is the cost of using University resources to attract students to a MOOC. We must recognize that anything developed by an instructor on university property is a form of intellectual property to which a university has some fair claim. Even if the business relationship goes no further than publicizing that the MOOC will be taught by famous Prof. X at famous school XYZ, some real brand value is invoked: would you rather take a course from MIT or some less vaunted institution? The effect of this brand association is easy to overlook now because instructors are cheerfully and voluntarily jumping onto bandwagons headed into unspecified directions, just to hang out with the cool kids, while their institutions are in wait-and-see mode, just curious what will come of it all. (In my opinion, the most forward-thinking institutions already realize that MOOCs and other online ventures are billboards for their other courses. Institutions that can't make that up-sell may be disappointed to discover that they can actually lose enrollment.)
One thing is clear: at some point, MOOCs will start to affect higher ed's revenue streams... even if the courses are offered for free and if colleges accept credit derived from completing them with no charge for certification. Based on my tentative ideas about what proportion of current college coursework is appropriate for MOOCs, I estimate that as much as a quarter of all 4-yr college cost could be swept away from our colleges and universities in short order. That would have an enormous impact on higher ed revenue. We in higher ed need to ask ourselves whether the venture capitalists plan to deliver that to society as a savings... or to claim it as a profit. And it is entirely reasonable for startups like Coursera to profit- they're running large risks and exploring uncharted waters.
Startup companies like Coursera have not been forthcoming with their business models. Perhaps they don't need to, yet: there has been a huge splurge of venture capital because investors see higher ed as an enormous cash cow. Indeed, higher ed is a very remunerative business- even for non-profit schools. Just the loan finance business associated with higher ed is a multi-billion dollar market, annually.
The question is, how much do MOOCs cost? The obvious expenses associated with producing quality MOOCs are for instructors, software and media production, quality control, cost of assignments and proctoring exams, and accreditation- whatever form that might take if actual credit is to be awarded. many of these costs are unknown at this point, because they courses are being offered in experimental, ad hoc manner. There isn't enough data to compute real net costs.
Apart from that, even if a MOOC itself is cost-free, it could still have *huge* financial impact in higher ed, because much of the material that MOOCs deliver is also being taught in our colleges. The most obvious overlap is in the intro coursework. For those classes, the case for a well-executed MOOC is quite good: the class sizes are already large and much of the material could benefit by a periodic reboot. But note: the large intro classes are also some of the very most profitable for a college: they have a large enrollment, a very large ratio of students to instructors, and typically require very little overhead expenditure relative to the other courses.
One cost that has not been addressed at all, in my view, is the cost of using University resources to attract students to a MOOC. We must recognize that anything developed by an instructor on university property is a form of intellectual property to which a university has some fair claim. Even if the business relationship goes no further than publicizing that the MOOC will be taught by famous Prof. X at famous school XYZ, some real brand value is invoked: would you rather take a course from MIT or some less vaunted institution? The effect of this brand association is easy to overlook now because instructors are cheerfully and voluntarily jumping onto bandwagons headed into unspecified directions, just to hang out with the cool kids, while their institutions are in wait-and-see mode, just curious what will come of it all. (In my opinion, the most forward-thinking institutions already realize that MOOCs and other online ventures are billboards for their other courses. Institutions that can't make that up-sell may be disappointed to discover that they can actually lose enrollment.)
One thing is clear: at some point, MOOCs will start to affect higher ed's revenue streams... even if the courses are offered for free and if colleges accept credit derived from completing them with no charge for certification. Based on my tentative ideas about what proportion of current college coursework is appropriate for MOOCs, I estimate that as much as a quarter of all 4-yr college cost could be swept away from our colleges and universities in short order. That would have an enormous impact on higher ed revenue. We in higher ed need to ask ourselves whether the venture capitalists plan to deliver that to society as a savings... or to claim it as a profit. And it is entirely reasonable for startups like Coursera to profit- they're running large risks and exploring uncharted waters.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Whither our Community Colleges?
It is nonsensical for students, their families and the American taxpayer to foot the bill for high school material taught at inflated college prices. (A recent blog post on this topic may be found here) As I have commented previously, the "prep" problem plays a large role in the escalating cost of higher ed in the U.S. Clearly, intro material should be completed before students enter college, in our high schools.
Community colleges offer a way to alleviate the cost burden of underpreparedness. With lower overhead (administrative and facilities), lower cost faculty contracts, less reputation cost, and no pricey dorms and dining services, most community colleges can easily underprice traditional 4-yr colleges.
It is important to consider the role of community colleges in the context of the recent surge of interest in online / distance-learning. In my opinion, community colleges should take some risk and embrace the new modes of online learning with open arms. I say this because the online providers desperately need credible sponsors; community colleges can oblige and greatly supplement their offerings. Issues such as uncontrolled testing environments, plagiarism, etc. really keep the online services from gaining broad academic credibility... and this ultimately affects the market value of the online courses and accreditation. Now might be the time for community colleges to step up and partner with the online content providers, acting as a physical location for their services, in parallel to more traditional coursework. Community colleges could partner to provide online content as well as supplementary offline instruction. They could also provide credible and reproducible assignment grading and test proctoring services, and facilitate student gatherings and faculty-student interaction. All of this is consistent with maintaining and even improving the community colleges' cost advantage and student throughput.
Community colleges offer a way to alleviate the cost burden of underpreparedness. With lower overhead (administrative and facilities), lower cost faculty contracts, less reputation cost, and no pricey dorms and dining services, most community colleges can easily underprice traditional 4-yr colleges.
It is important to consider the role of community colleges in the context of the recent surge of interest in online / distance-learning. In my opinion, community colleges should take some risk and embrace the new modes of online learning with open arms. I say this because the online providers desperately need credible sponsors; community colleges can oblige and greatly supplement their offerings. Issues such as uncontrolled testing environments, plagiarism, etc. really keep the online services from gaining broad academic credibility... and this ultimately affects the market value of the online courses and accreditation. Now might be the time for community colleges to step up and partner with the online content providers, acting as a physical location for their services, in parallel to more traditional coursework. Community colleges could partner to provide online content as well as supplementary offline instruction. They could also provide credible and reproducible assignment grading and test proctoring services, and facilitate student gatherings and faculty-student interaction. All of this is consistent with maintaining and even improving the community colleges' cost advantage and student throughput.
Monday, September 3, 2012
A Lame Duck Falls off the Fiscal Cliff as the Four Witches Meet in the Autumn...
Several ominous clouds continue to gather on the horizon.
Of greatest concern, the US election seems certain to lead to status quo and continued gridlock. As the heat turns up in Washington in the final stretch to the election, I expect neither side to yield one inch in their negotiations for the federal budget and sequestration. Ideally, there would be a clear and decisive election, with a substantial majority sweeping to power in both houses and the presidency.
But a decisive victory is unlikely to happen. Based on current data, it appears that Mr. Obama will keep his job; Republicans will keep the House after ceding just a few seats to the Democrats; and Republicans will either take the Senate or leave it in ~50/50 split.
If this happens, then Mr. Obama may promptly be served with sequestration. If Mr. Romney wins, there could be some brief respite from the partisanship, but with inauguration several weeks after the sequestration deadline, there could be a period of great uncertainty, regardless.
Hence, in either case, it appears that uncertainty will reign for at least a month or so, unless pre-emptive action is taken in the next month. There are a few catalysts for action that may save us from calamity:
All told, there will be very few clear signals to entice investors whose ~$3T is still on the sidelines; there are very few solid opportunities and an almost incalculable risk. One short-term bright spot is Apple ($AAPL), which will introduce the iPhone V in a few weeks. I suspect that Apple's new phone may spike interest in Sprint ($S), due to bandwidth issues and the possibility of a partnership. After two months of solid growth in the $CORN ETF, I have lost interest: it appears that the drought is now priced in, and one now has to look to foods and fuels to see inflation. Overall, energy prices appear unlikely to budge unless and until sequestration is dealt with conclusively, one way or the other. If it does occur, fuel prices could revisit catastrophic lows from Sept '08. If it does not, prices should continue their slow meanderings.
Long story short: the only stocks and ETFs that interest me right now are $AAPL, $S, and $GLD. As sequestration looms, I will again become more interested in energy and financial bear funds and bonds.
Of greatest concern, the US election seems certain to lead to status quo and continued gridlock. As the heat turns up in Washington in the final stretch to the election, I expect neither side to yield one inch in their negotiations for the federal budget and sequestration. Ideally, there would be a clear and decisive election, with a substantial majority sweeping to power in both houses and the presidency.
But a decisive victory is unlikely to happen. Based on current data, it appears that Mr. Obama will keep his job; Republicans will keep the House after ceding just a few seats to the Democrats; and Republicans will either take the Senate or leave it in ~50/50 split.
If this happens, then Mr. Obama may promptly be served with sequestration. If Mr. Romney wins, there could be some brief respite from the partisanship, but with inauguration several weeks after the sequestration deadline, there could be a period of great uncertainty, regardless.
Hence, in either case, it appears that uncertainty will reign for at least a month or so, unless pre-emptive action is taken in the next month. There are a few catalysts for action that may save us from calamity:
- The next quadruple witching event is in September, at which point futures contracts will be sharply in focus. This event quite often passes without notice, but this time, there will be the fiscal cliff, the election outcome, the drought, uncertainty in the Eurozone (some believe September could be the month of exit for Greece), and the slowdown in China. It's been a long while since witching mattered this much- perhaps as long ago as September 2001.
- Second, the sequestration hits to the defense sector could start to appear as early as mid September, as the large contractors begin to plot a course through very choppy waters. With companies like Lockheed Martin ($LMT) signaling huge negative pressures ahead, it seems that hundreds of thousands of layoff notices could hit, eventually resulting in more than a million job losses. N.b. there is already some criticism that Lockheed and others will play up the layoff scenario because the election will take place just a few days after the layoff notices are due; however, many of the layoff notices are indeed compelled by law, and the remainder are consistent with the view that sequestration could indeed be catastrophic.
- In response to the defense contractor hit, it appears that State credit downgrades may occur, particularly in Virginia and Maryland- two States where defense is a substantial chunk of total business output. From the electoral standpoint, swing-state Virginia is very important to watch.
All told, there will be very few clear signals to entice investors whose ~$3T is still on the sidelines; there are very few solid opportunities and an almost incalculable risk. One short-term bright spot is Apple ($AAPL), which will introduce the iPhone V in a few weeks. I suspect that Apple's new phone may spike interest in Sprint ($S), due to bandwidth issues and the possibility of a partnership. After two months of solid growth in the $CORN ETF, I have lost interest: it appears that the drought is now priced in, and one now has to look to foods and fuels to see inflation. Overall, energy prices appear unlikely to budge unless and until sequestration is dealt with conclusively, one way or the other. If it does occur, fuel prices could revisit catastrophic lows from Sept '08. If it does not, prices should continue their slow meanderings.
Long story short: the only stocks and ETFs that interest me right now are $AAPL, $S, and $GLD. As sequestration looms, I will again become more interested in energy and financial bear funds and bonds.
Ed Reform in Election Season
There is a clear generational difference in how the Republicans and Democrats are approaching the topic of education in this campaign.
The Republicans are serving up a few comments about the student loan problem, in the context of their broad narrative on national debt. However, their clear focus is on K-12, particularly school choice a la Milton Friedman. Obviously, both messages target parents and adults. This approach probably won't interest college students in the least.
The Democrats are taking a very different approach. During a recent stump speech here in Charlottesville, Mr. Obama used every play in the book with regard to college students, implying that his party is for affordable access to higher ed. Clearly, his camp targets the youth vote. The message comes across as a rather clear pander to me, but it may succeed nevertheless.
Neither side will delve into higher ed's more complex issues- they aren't exactly compelling campaign material, and many of the core problems are at the State level.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
#Election2012: Why I'd Vote #NOTA
In some electoral systems, there is the option to vote NOTA - none of the above. Like many other voters, I wish I could exercise that option in November. I suspect that voter turnout would be a lot higher than usual if we did have NOTA on the ballot.
This year, as we teeter on the edge of a fiscal cliff created by entrenched partisans who believe that they can score votes from it, Americans are cursed with two almost equally clueless tickets. Neither side offers realistic solutions: this election is all about rallying a small number of base voters in a few swing states. There is high probability that the electoral college will pick one winner and the popular vote will pick another.
This is the least national, least engaging election I've ever witnessed. Part of the problem is an old issue: our winner-takes-all electoral system makes several populous States completely irrelevant, e.g. California, New York, and Texas, all of which have very important fiscal and immigration issues that matter to voters. Because of winner-takes-all, campaign and super-PAC spending is focused on the swing States. Want to make a difference in this election? Sorry, you'll have to move to one of the swing States. But before you pack your bags, let me warn you that in a swing States like Virginia (where I live), you will be subjected to an unrelenting barrage of annoyingly thin propaganda. And much of that propaganda comes from sources we can't even trace.
Another reason why this election isn't engaging is because of the longstanding deadlock in D.C., which shows no signs of abating. Almost everyone expects that neither side will win with sufficient margin to pursue their strategies. The impasse is due in large measure to our two historically inept leaders in the House and Senate, both of whom will almost certainly still be on the job after November. Thanks to the anti-leadership of Boehner and Reid, Congress now has the lowest approval in all recorded history- around 10% in a recent Gallup poll. That will continue, regardless of who wins in November... unless, perchance, the margin of victory is very large, which appears very unlikely at this stage.
The two tickets offer me very few compelling reason to vote for them:
Romney and Ryan pledge to reduce federal spending to 20% of GDP in their term. This is complete nonsense. The number is currently ~30%, and reducing it as quickly as they say will guarantee depression. Apparently, Mr. Ryan actually wants sequestration to happen. I know firsthand how disastrous that would be, but nevertheless I admit that almost wish that it would happen, simply to discredit these people and flush them out of the system. Unfortunately, the issues that the Republicans should be pursuing are apparently on the back burner: simplified regulations, a simplified tax code with fewer loopholes, a realistic debt and spending plan, and immigration reform. Regarding this latter item, about which we've heard so little: the U.S. has always relied on immigrant influx to spur growth, and the current situation is no exception. That we have so many legal immigrants unfairly bogged down in bureaucracy is an outrage. And why the Republicans haven't embraced this cause, particularly when they flounder in their attempt to court hispanic voters in must-win Florida... it boggles the mind. It's as if the Republicans actually want to lose.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to engage in pandering of the worst kind. If you want to predict what President Obama will say at a campaign event, just ask yourself what you most want to hear and, yes, that's precisely what he'll say- regardless of reality. You want lower unemployment? Want to close Guantanamo? Don't like wars? Want universal and affordable health care? Want to tackle the national debt? Sure, he'll promise all of those things. Ask for specifics and... crickets. Apparently, his proudest accomplishment (apart from sinking Bin Laden) is a healthcare Bill that is a beautifully wrapped gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Our healthcare premiums continue to rocket upwards, even as medicare is imperiled. Yes indeed, many citizens previously not covered by insurance are now covered, and that is a great thing. However, the cost of the Bill actually exceeds the cost of providing that insurance; the coverage is far from universal or affordable; and the cost of providing coverage to employees has become a major source of concern for small businesses. In the memorable words of Biden: "this is a big [bleeping] deal." Indeed, and the American taxpayer who will ultimately be [bleeped] by this Bill - the Administration's proudest accomplishment of the past four years.
So the Democrats seem to want to give everything, and the Republicans seem to want to take everything away, and pragmatists are ignored by both. In this season, there are few things to encourage the American voter. One item worth mention is the Simpson-Bowles plan, which the President abandoned and which Paul Ryan voted against. I do take a lot of comfort from the fact that pragmatists like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are quietly toiling away, behind the scenes, on realistic plans to restore American fiscal credibility and international competitiveness. Unfortunately, neither of these fine statesmen are partnered with either ticket in 2012, and so it appears that we have four more years of poor fiscal stewardship, stagnant domestic growth and several fiscal shocks ahead. But mark my words, voters will come back with a vengeance in 2016. If the economy unravels as I fear it might, all of our current leaders will be swept aside in short order. It's just a matter of time.
So, maybe get-it-done pragmatists like me just need to wait four more years. I still wish that I could vote NOTA 2012, though. At least then I'd have a reason to vote.
This year, as we teeter on the edge of a fiscal cliff created by entrenched partisans who believe that they can score votes from it, Americans are cursed with two almost equally clueless tickets. Neither side offers realistic solutions: this election is all about rallying a small number of base voters in a few swing states. There is high probability that the electoral college will pick one winner and the popular vote will pick another.
This is the least national, least engaging election I've ever witnessed. Part of the problem is an old issue: our winner-takes-all electoral system makes several populous States completely irrelevant, e.g. California, New York, and Texas, all of which have very important fiscal and immigration issues that matter to voters. Because of winner-takes-all, campaign and super-PAC spending is focused on the swing States. Want to make a difference in this election? Sorry, you'll have to move to one of the swing States. But before you pack your bags, let me warn you that in a swing States like Virginia (where I live), you will be subjected to an unrelenting barrage of annoyingly thin propaganda. And much of that propaganda comes from sources we can't even trace.
Another reason why this election isn't engaging is because of the longstanding deadlock in D.C., which shows no signs of abating. Almost everyone expects that neither side will win with sufficient margin to pursue their strategies. The impasse is due in large measure to our two historically inept leaders in the House and Senate, both of whom will almost certainly still be on the job after November. Thanks to the anti-leadership of Boehner and Reid, Congress now has the lowest approval in all recorded history- around 10% in a recent Gallup poll. That will continue, regardless of who wins in November... unless, perchance, the margin of victory is very large, which appears very unlikely at this stage.
The two tickets offer me very few compelling reason to vote for them:
Romney and Ryan pledge to reduce federal spending to 20% of GDP in their term. This is complete nonsense. The number is currently ~30%, and reducing it as quickly as they say will guarantee depression. Apparently, Mr. Ryan actually wants sequestration to happen. I know firsthand how disastrous that would be, but nevertheless I admit that almost wish that it would happen, simply to discredit these people and flush them out of the system. Unfortunately, the issues that the Republicans should be pursuing are apparently on the back burner: simplified regulations, a simplified tax code with fewer loopholes, a realistic debt and spending plan, and immigration reform. Regarding this latter item, about which we've heard so little: the U.S. has always relied on immigrant influx to spur growth, and the current situation is no exception. That we have so many legal immigrants unfairly bogged down in bureaucracy is an outrage. And why the Republicans haven't embraced this cause, particularly when they flounder in their attempt to court hispanic voters in must-win Florida... it boggles the mind. It's as if the Republicans actually want to lose.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to engage in pandering of the worst kind. If you want to predict what President Obama will say at a campaign event, just ask yourself what you most want to hear and, yes, that's precisely what he'll say- regardless of reality. You want lower unemployment? Want to close Guantanamo? Don't like wars? Want universal and affordable health care? Want to tackle the national debt? Sure, he'll promise all of those things. Ask for specifics and... crickets. Apparently, his proudest accomplishment (apart from sinking Bin Laden) is a healthcare Bill that is a beautifully wrapped gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Our healthcare premiums continue to rocket upwards, even as medicare is imperiled. Yes indeed, many citizens previously not covered by insurance are now covered, and that is a great thing. However, the cost of the Bill actually exceeds the cost of providing that insurance; the coverage is far from universal or affordable; and the cost of providing coverage to employees has become a major source of concern for small businesses. In the memorable words of Biden: "this is a big [bleeping] deal." Indeed, and the American taxpayer who will ultimately be [bleeped] by this Bill - the Administration's proudest accomplishment of the past four years.
So the Democrats seem to want to give everything, and the Republicans seem to want to take everything away, and pragmatists are ignored by both. In this season, there are few things to encourage the American voter. One item worth mention is the Simpson-Bowles plan, which the President abandoned and which Paul Ryan voted against. I do take a lot of comfort from the fact that pragmatists like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are quietly toiling away, behind the scenes, on realistic plans to restore American fiscal credibility and international competitiveness. Unfortunately, neither of these fine statesmen are partnered with either ticket in 2012, and so it appears that we have four more years of poor fiscal stewardship, stagnant domestic growth and several fiscal shocks ahead. But mark my words, voters will come back with a vengeance in 2016. If the economy unravels as I fear it might, all of our current leaders will be swept aside in short order. It's just a matter of time.
So, maybe get-it-done pragmatists like me just need to wait four more years. I still wish that I could vote NOTA 2012, though. At least then I'd have a reason to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)