I think Clayton Christensen is playing catch-up with this article on disruptive innovation in education; the piece seems ad hoc, the examples of 'pioneers' arbitrary (Thunderbird School of Global Management? The Minerva Project?), and the explanations implausible. For example, this: "In theory, for-profit companies should have shaken up the higher education landscape. But federal financial aid seems to have gummed up the disruption." The world is larger than just one country, though, and despite a wide variety of aid regimens, the for-profit companies didn't shake up the landscape anywhere. Online learning wasn't ready, and consumers weren't ready; you need good high-speed always-on access to really make it work (indeed, if anything, for-profit companies slowed it down, clinging to their profit margins as long as they could).
Today: 1 Total: 19 [Direct link] [Share]
