I don't hate Tim Tebow

From FantasyCollegeBlitz.com
From FantasyCollegeBlitz.com

I’ve often said I hated Tim Tebow.  I really don’t. It’s just that he’s too good.  When he took that hit against Kentucky I was initially happy (not that he was suffering from a concussion) that he might not be the only person college football analysts talked about the following week.  But, I’m wrong.

I think they got over the severe concussion a little too fast.  I mean, the guy was puking his brains out and had to be rushed off the field.  If that had happened to me “on the job”, I still might not be at work (I certainly wouldn’t be having much fun reading a bright computer screen all day).  It seemed that most people just were hoping that the two weeks off were enough time for him to get back on his feet and back to “Superman” status (honestly, there was a headline in FL after the LSU game that read “Superman Returns”).

This past weekend I watched a bunch of football games, in all of them there were nasty collisions that encouraged cheers from the crowd and celebrations by the players.  In a couple of games it was obvious that a player had been knocked out (as they lay prone on the ground, sometimes still clutching the ball or holding their limbs out, as if they were frozen).  Don’t get me wrong, I love football.  I find it fascinating to watch and enjoyable to talk about.  But the number of injuries and the increasing reports of head trauma reported by former players really makes me uneasy about the sport.  In a recent New Yorker magazine article, Malcolm Gladwell goes to far as to draw an analogy between dog fighting and football: he says that players are hand picked for their ability to put the team and the team’s goals above their own personal well-being (loyalty to the team = desire to win = ability to sacrifice personal health).

Taking or delivering a great hit is part of the game (one of Gladwell’s strongest critiques of the sport).  But the level at which these collisions occurs is insane.  For example, hits on the football field (at the college level) can equate to a 45 mile an hour car collision!  But it’s not as if the players are getting in one collision a game, in fact, they’re in dozens of collisions every practice.

…In an average football season, a lineman could get struck in the head a thousand times, which means that a ten-year N.F.L. veteran, when you bring in his college and high-school playing days, could well have been hit in the head eighteen thousand times: that’s thousands of jarring blows that shake the brain from front to back and side to side, stretching and weakening and tearing the connections among nerve cells, and making the brain increasingly vulnerable to long-term damage. (Gladwell, “Offensive Play” The New Yorker 2009 p.5)

And what do these collisions and concussions cause?  Dementia and other memory loss afflictions.

I am part of a family dealing with the hardship that dementia and Alzheimer’s can cause.  I can tell you only one thing: if it’s preventable, do whatever you can to stave it off.

All you can learn for $99 a month

Buffet-style education?  Heck yeah.  The company is probably one you’ve never heard of (I hadn’t) but I already see it’s value and foundation: efficiency + quality + freedom = a better way for motivated learners to get degrees.  The company is StraigtherLine (based in DC) and it provides a carte blanche approach to education for a low monthly fee.  Partnering with colleges around the US for accreditation, it can eschew the rigors of meeting an accreditation but also provide credits as part of the monthly fee (I’m guessing that they assume students will average a certain number of days per course, ensuring their ability to cover course credit costs per student per course passed).

This model has its detractors and rightly so.  This is a major shakeup of the status-quo in American style (which in a sense is the global standard) higher education.  It’s a bet that 100s of millions–perhaps billions–of dollars are caught up in the system, an inefficiency brought forth by the “college amenity package” which currently consists of A/C dorms, game rooms, student centers, weekend trips, free internet, student clubs and activities, research grants, etc.  The whole shebang which constitutes the contemporary college experience.

That being said, I have to agree with the Washington Monthly‘s take on the so-called ‘education bubble’ (see a few earlier posts about this as well);

It’s tempting in such circumstances to take comfort in the seeming permanency of our colleges and universities, in the notion that our world-beating higher education system will reliably produce research and knowledge workers for decades to come. But this is an illusion. Colleges are caught in the same kind of debt-fueled price spiral that just blew up the real estate market. They’re also in the information business in a time when technology is driving down the cost of selling information to record, destabilizing lows. (Washington Monthly – “College for $99 a Month” pg 1)

It makes perfect sense that the arrival of ubiquitous, free information paired with easier to access internet connectivity means that costs will be driven down (what doesn’t make sense is that, until now, colleges have largely bucked the trend, charging what they want and increasing those charges at higher than justifiable rates):

Colleges charge students exorbitant sums partly because they can, but partly because they have to. Traditional universities are complex and expensive, providing a range of services from scientific research and graduate training to mass entertainment via loosely affiliated professional sports franchises. To fund these things, universities tap numerous streams of revenue: tuition, government funding, research grants, alumni and charitable donations. But the biggest cash cow is lower-division undergraduate education. (pg 3)

So what happens when that bottom falls out?  If Straighterline.com is marginally successful then there’ll be rivals partnering with as many accredited colleges offering the same programs.  Those colleges might even court several low cost providers to hedge their bets.  The unaccredited low-cost providers will cut out an entire swath of inefficiency (freshman lectures) leaving a gaping whole in university and college enrollments (cause those students will just pay the couple of hundred bucks and transfer in the max credits).  Where a university or college might have garnered $9000 from a student before (for 3 classes let’s say) the student now pays a few 100 and gets a jump start for him/herself and a bonus in his/her checkbook.  Colleges and universities will become leaner.  They’ll be forced to realize their competitive advantage and adopt a laser like focus to milk as much dough as they can from it (this is a positive in my humble opinion).

Honestly, this already exists for a lot of states that are smart about tiering their education: California is perhaps my favorite example.  As a “freshman” I can go to Community College (Santa Barbara has a particularly beautiful and esteemed on), I can finish 2 years of college (60 credits+!) and use them at any UC school in the state.  The total cost? 1200 bucks plus student fees (which includes a bus pass).  That being said, SBCC is hugely subsidized by the state.  So really, if a private company can do it profitably is that so wrong when a state can only do it by losing money?  Remember that CA just struggled to figure out a 44 billion dollar deficit.  Maybe outsourcing these courses to Straighterline  (instead of subsidizing them) could have saved some time, effort and money.

Related posts: