Lifelong Learning / Post-Graduate Education
Lifelong Learning / Post-Graduate Education Refinement and Implementation Committee (RIC) 11
Committee Members
Sanjay Sarma (Chair), Bruce Cameron, Chris Caplice, Eric Grimson, Nelson Repenning, Lisa Schwallie, Lily Tsai, Pawan Sinha, Larry Vale, and Susan Young (Staff)
Abstract
RIC 11 recommends the convening of an ad hoc committee to explore how new credentials might be developed to address challenges such as access and affordability for learners of all ages seeking to advance their education and careers. While RIC 11 does not recommend any immediate action with regard to the introduction of online master’s degrees, the committee encourages the continued development of blended master’s programs. Finally, the committee suggests that Deans’ Council be assigned the role of examining potential MIT offerings in online and on-site continuing education.
Background
The charge of this committee was to consider options for a more cohesive MIT-wide approach to aspects of lifelong education. The committee focused on three streams which emerged from Phase I of the Task Force:
- New online credentials
- Online master’s
- Continuing education
The committee also considered a key idea that surfaced in Phase 1 of the Task Force to create an Institute-wide unit at MIT dedicated to Continuing Education.
Findings
The committee identified a number of cross-cutting observations that build on the ideas from the work of the Education, Beyond MIT, and Financial Modeling Phase 1 groups.
Lifelong learning is very much aligned with MIT’s mission, as has been highlighted in several activities including the recent Work of the Future Study. Providing opportunities for people to learn, upskill, reskill, and change careers are major ways that MIT can make an impact and contribute to the world. MIT has unique strengths in this regard. First, MIT has world-class prowess in online education ranging from new credentials to ways to digitally verify credentials. Second, MIT has unique strengths in the science and technology of learning. Third, MIT also has historic experience and expertise in engaging “mind and hand” in learning; in the modern day, this could be seen as the complementarity of online education and on-site education. And finally, MIT has experience with several on-site education models including traditional semester education, short courses, weekend sessions, hackathons, bootcamps, and the MicroMasters blended model.
We believe that MIT would benefit from a coordinated strategy across the various aspects and modalities of education focused on individuals in the workforce.2 With the richness of experience across these modalities, we are also very aware of a number of challenges in this space, and recognize that in many cases, MIT has an opportunity to make a greater impact if it develops a more comprehensive and coordinated strategy. Below, we present recommendations along these lines for the three streams that emerged from Phase I of the Task Force.
Recommendations
Stream 1: New online credentials
We suggest that the president of MIT request the leadership of the Office of Digital Learning (ODL) to conduct a study with a charge similar to the one proposed below.
In 2014, the Future of MIT Education Task Force recommended that MIT explore new online credentials for the benefit of students. In 2015, ODL launched the MicroMasters, and the results are impressive.3 Since then, MIT has piloted the XMinor, a new credential that helps other educational institutions benefit without eroding their business models or viability. We ask of you these questions: What other online credentials might be built from MITx offerings, with what goals? How could new credentials contribute to addressing challenges facing the world of education, including access and affordability for learners of all ages seeking to advance their education and careers? In what ways might such new credentials help educational institutions, including those very different from our own, achieve their goals more effectively? How do these new credentials fit into the existing portfolio of credentials and certifications awarded by MIT? We suggest that you work with the MITx Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) to form an ad hoc faculty committee, including members of the MITx FAC and others who can give this topic thought, and formulate by spring 2022 suggestions for such credentials that MIT may pursue. We ask you to keep in mind the recent announcements about the ownership of edX.
Stream 2: Online master’s
There have been several discussions about online master’s programs over the years. The committee noted that creating an online master’s would require amendments to the Rules and Regulations of the Faculty, and will need to be considered by MIT’s faculty governance process. In addition, the reaction of alumni to the prospect of offering online degrees and the impact on future fundraising should be carefully considered. The committee explored a number of possible candidates for online master’s but did not identify a pressing candidate, although several departments did express interest in possible future offerings. In fact our preliminary discussions indicated that the first step towards an online master’s is often the consideration of a MicroMasters program. In the absence of a candidate, the committee recommends taking no action now, and instead, revisiting the question two years from now. In the meantime, the committee also suggests that the schools and college continue to experiment with “blended” options that might both allow us to access students for whom a fully on-campus experience is infeasible and use our scarce faculty and classroom resources more effectively.
Stream 3: Continuing education
The committee spent a great deal of time examining MIT’s possible offerings in online and on-site continuing education. We agreed that online continuing education is a critical area for MIT, not just because of the importance of such offerings on the emerging landscape of work and jobs of the future, but also because of the possible benefits of such programs to MIT’s core mission. However, we identified a number of challenges including: understanding and responding to learner and market needs; aligning the incentives of schools, departments, interdepartmental labs and individual faculty; developing fair compensation models; ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion in such programs; developing Institute-wide branding guidelines; establishing guidelines for who can teach, and how, in such programs; considering the role and mechanism of faculty governance; developing guidelines for credentialing and continuous education units (CEUs); developing a vendor strategy; examining ways to synergize online and on-site engagements; leveraging MIT’s prowess in pedagogy and in the science and technology of learning; and coordinating across the Institute to produce the best offerings possible.
Since this is a key and strategic topic, the committee requests that it be taken on by a combination of school and college Deans, Open Learning, and the Chair of the Faculty. One body that might serve as the follow-up for our recommendation is the Deans’ Council with, for the purposes of this discussion, the involvement of Open Learning leadership.
Institute-wide unit for continuing education
A College of Continuing Education could function as an organizing/integrating body that proactively surfaces gaps and expands opportunities in this space, particularly when it comes to interdisciplinary offerings. Shared resources could also lead to excellence and efficiency. But such a body should only be created when the more fundamental issues listed in the recommendations above have been resolved. At this time, the committee recommends deferring consideration of such a unit until the above streams are covered.
Financial Resources
No significant financial resources will be required for the implementation of the recommendations suggested above, as further consideration of new online credentials (Stream 1) and continuing education (Stream 3) should reside within already existing groups. The committee recommends no action on the other two areas mentioned above (Stream 2 and College of Continuing Education). However, all the recommendations involve commercial engagement, including sales, suggesting MIT should entertain compensation policies that are compatible with commercial best practices.