By LEX DROZD and MARIA HAHN

In “The Abundant University,” Michael D. Smith, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, makes a case for “a new golden age of education.” He argues that the transformative potential of ever-expanding digital technologies challenges the conventional notions of higher education and that this is a good thing.

Smith challenges the status quo, particularly the inherent scarcities of access, instruction and credentials. By doing so, quality education can expand to include those systematically neglected from higher education. Smith explores what it means to educate and be educated in a world where information is abundant and access is broadening.

As mentioned, the argument about the benefits of online education comes from exploring what the traditional factory model of the education system lacks. Smith details the failings of the current system extensively. Three main scarcities have underpinned our education system since its inception: access, instruction and credentials.

The argument about the scarcity of access opens the book. Smith starts his preface by discussing a creative writing seminar at Princeton University where award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates teaches a highly desired 10-person class. This student desire illustrates that scarcity of access occurs even at a highly selective institution.

Luckily, Oates also teaches a MasterClass, an online course available for a low price ($15) to anyone with internet access. While the MasterClass experience is not the same as the Princeton residential experience, it offers an option to people who cannot enroll in the course as a Princeton student. These MasterClass students will not receive the attention the in-person experience provides. However, students will get a lot out of the 14-session course, much more than if it were unavailable.

In Chapter 4, Smith proposes the second scarcity: the scarcity of instruction. Smith takes us back to the 1960s when Benjamin Bloom researched a strategy called mastery learning. Mastery learning allows students to learn at their own pace, mastering the basics before moving into more difficult concepts. This method differs from the standardized one-size-fits-all educational methods that stemmed from the early 1900s factory model of education.

Smith argues that Bloom’s research showed that students perform better using mastery learning. However, conventional weed-out courses are still commonly encountered in universities, as is bell-curve grading. This results in a scarcity of equitable instruction. 

Smith describes other instructional scarcities in this chapter, such as the number of instructors available, an instructor’s time and location, and the resources instructors provide, meaning that there is pressure placed on instructors to research and publish rather than to hone their teaching skills.

The final scarcity Smith examines is the scarcity of credentials. While some professors hope to create learned members of society through higher education, Smith notes that our economic society values a bachelor’s degree. Students who can pay for expensive college educations know that they will graduate with a degree qualifying them for well-paying jobs. Bachelor’s degrees are used to signal that a job applicant possesses qualities such as follow-through and focus, even though some positions may not necessitate a college education to do the job well. Smith’s point is that we are neglecting a large portion of society by continuing with the scarcity of credentials. Folks who cannot access or afford a college education from a residential institution are missing out on opportunities that bachelor’s degree recipients have. 

As a business and management professor at CMU, Smith draws on his extensive research on and experiences with the impact of new technologies on various sectors, highlighting a recurring trend. One industry where digitization occurred is the entertainment industry — a story Smith weaves throughout the book. He observes that established industries often dismiss digital technologies due to skepticism about their quality, a belief in the ongoing demand for their traditional products and confidence in their market leadership, protecting them from the need to adapt.

Smith argues that the digital transformation seen in the entertainment industry, marked by a shift from scarcity to abundance due to streaming services and increased ease of production, is poised to impact higher education similarly. This challenges the traditional model of high costs and exclusivity in higher education, ensuring more accessible and flexible educational options. Digital education platforms facilitate greater consumer access and adaptability, allowing all types of learners to personalize their educational pathways.

Smith notes that higher education can adapt to the digital transformation by accepting that the traditional ways of delivering education are no longer effective or equitable in this era of digital technology. Further, new entrants in the education industry will arise due to the new online educational platforms and non-traditional providers, just as new streaming services entered the entertainment industry.

The book’s primary argument is that digital technologies can make education more accessible for all, and Smith supports the argument well. Digital education platforms can democratize learning for people who are without access to traditional educational institutions. The lower price of digital education increases access for more students, particularly non-traditional ones. Digital education platforms enable continuous access, thereby ensuring accessibility to a lifetime of learning. Finally, the quality of digital education is now substantial, and equity and accessibility can be assured.

The digital transformation in entertainment broke the access barriers, and online learning can do the same. Similarly to the democratization of content creation and distribution in entertainment, digital platforms have already begun democratizing credentials.

The age of Zoom, Panopto and Canvas makes flexible and tailored instruction available to those who have internet connections across financial circumstances, institutions, and geographic locations. 

Online education is subject to barriers and access restrictions. Smith addresses financial circumstances briefly when he discusses initial studies on massive online open courses (MOOCs). A study on MOOC participants between 2012 and 2014 found a median income of almost $70,000, which is $12,000 over the national average of $57,643. However, Smith points out that during the same period, students at Harvard and MIT came from families making $137,400 and $168,000, respectively. Digital education must be both designed for all and accessible to all, and improving internet access is a crucial piece of the puzzle.

Lex Drozd is a senior instructional designer for the Pitt Online team at the University Center for Teaching and Learning, and Maria Hahn is an educational software consultant for the Teaching Center.