Higher Education in 2030: Get Ready for the #HigherEd #Startup Revolution

Thomas Frey predicted that 50% of colleges would collapse by 2030. Similarly, Clayton Christiansen is quoted as saying that 50% of colleges will not exist in 15 years. Others have made similar claims. Such predictions are based on tracing the impact and likely trajectory of innovations like blended and online learning, open learning, technologies allowing for mass customization and personalization, adapting learning software, and a growing set of alternative pathways to gainful and skilled employment.

I agree that all these trends and more will have a signficant impact on higher education as we know it. There will be more pathways to work, and I have hopes that the liberal arts will be set free from the ivory towers to flourish in open and public spaces and in local communities. The forthcoming innovation of tuition-free community college (and possibly four-year degrees) in large sections of the United States (if not the entire nation) will also shift power and structures in higher education, causing some tuition-driven college models to struggle or fail.

Such changes and innovations will drive colleges and universities to have a much-needed identity crisis, to genuinely grapple with three questions. What is essential about who we are and what we do? What is important about who we are and what we do? And, what is merely present (or largely malleable) about who we are and what we do?

  • The role of the professor will be challenged, as we already see with confusion and debate about the value and future of faculty tenure.
  • The cracks in the aging credit and clock hour systems will become increasingly transparent.
  • Efforts to cling to the letter grade system will suffer under increased scrutiny and increased acceptance of alternatives.
  • Debates about credentials and micro-credentials will expand.
  • Debates about distinctions between training and education will persist, but answers within the Ivory Tower will be inadequate. They must be debated in the public square, open to as many people as possible.
  • The classroom lecture will diminish in value amid growing acceptance of alternative teaching and learning methods.
  • The role of faculty member will be unbundled, rebundled, renamed, and unbundled again; creating entirely new roles that augment or sometimes replace of that traditional teaching faculty.
  • Universities will find it necessary to more fully articulate and defend the societal role of research, which should not be difficult to defend in areas having direct implications for human health and well-being, but might struggle in areas that have less widespread agreement about the value.
  • Entirely new forms of higher education will emerge and there will be growing debate about education versus job training, and there will not be a single winner, because there will be many forms to evolve that reflect one, the other, or both.
  • Enrollment in some traditional institutions will decline as some opt for new forms of education and training.
  • Uniform instruction will be contrasted to personalized learning, and personalized will eventually win; but concepts of learning communities will gain increased traction being an important third way that pulls from both.
  • Unbundled services will continue; with more partnerships, subscription services, agreements, and contracted services becoming a standard and commonplace practice.
  • Big data will will drive more decisions and bring about a new form of administration. In the mid-term, it might seem to drive institutions toward heartless and inhuman calculations about who can and should do what (as in who should be pre-med and who should be a med-tech), but the humanities and positive psychology will curb the direction of these efforts, eventually leading them toward more humane uses. Or, such views will be crushed under number-crunching analysts. The future is uncertain here.
  • The role of the social life, extracurriculars and intercollegiate athletics will gain new levels of scrutiny, celebration and debate; and there will likely be an unbundling of these elements just as we’ve seen with other parts of the academic experience.
  • Current blended and online learning practices will become quickly outdated as new research and technology leads to a reinvention of learning and teaching at a distance.
  • The value of regional accrediting bodies will gain a new level of scrutiny, leading to their diminished role, the development a larger number of them, or more oversight residing in state and federal offices.
  • The debate about preparing skilled workers for some sort of global competition played on the grounds of science, technology, engineering and math will continue to clash with understanding about the power of celebrating nurturing the uniqueness of each person and what they can contribute to the world.

These debates and questions (and many others) will shape and reshape the surviving and thriving higher education institutions of the future. Those schools that refuse to take seriously such questions, unwilling to clarify and communicate their identity, will struggle to survive, and some will close. Yet, I believe that those higher education institutions that face these questions with persistence, depth and the passionate disinterest becoming of a scholar will contribute to a new wave of higher education, one that will thrive and continue to make important contributions to society. The appeal to authority or expertise of professors and higher education institutions, along with rhetoric and emotional appeals will not be enough to stave off the need for deep, honest and (especially important) open reflection about these matters.

Will that mean that only half survive? I think that is too simple of a picture. Many will have extreme makeovers, but will emerge with new life. Some will shrink while others expand. And along that, I am convinced that we will see an entirely new breed of higher education institution- hyper-local, living and learning communities of 100-300; some communities sharing resources across them while maintaining their distinct culture, educational philosophy, and niche contribution (I will be writing more about this in the future). As such, I expect that, by 2030, we might have two to three times as many higher education institutions as we have today, even as there will be more alternatives to the traditional college routes for people. Get ready for the higher education “startup” revolution. They might not all be higher education institutions as we’ve thought of them in the past, but they will be institutions that provide education beyond the secondary level.

12 Ways to Speed Innovation in Online Learning & Competency-based Education

Michael Horn wrote a wonderful summary of his testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee about the reauthorization of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. He focused on barriers to and opportunities for innovation. At the end of his testimony, Senator Lamar Alexander invited the panel, which included Michael Horn, to speak to specific “regulations that are stunting online, competency-based education.” In response that request, I offer the following twelve specifics. I’ve not referenced specific sections in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act (although I did re-read it in preparation for this post) nor am I mentioning specific regulations or policies from regional accreditors. I am offering twelve specific ways to speed innovation with online learning, CBE, and higher education in general.  These are barriers that come from explicit aspects of the Higher Education Act and some regional accrediting bodies, but they also include softer but just as significant barriers, those that come from the structure and threat of censure. In fact, when I just re-read the Higher Education Authorization Act, I semi-jokingly commented that it can be summarized in a sentence: “Do not innovate…or else; unless you are Western Governor’s University or a nursing program.” There is more to it, so please don’t click away quite yet. In addition, I’ve include elements that are not present in the regulations now, but adding something related to them could prompt a rapid move forward.

I realize that some of these are controversial, but I share them more as I often do as a consultant for an organization. I am not neutral. My convictions show up, but I do offer this as a menu of items. Depending upon your taste, you will opt for some and not others. If your goal is the speed innovation in these areas, here are twelve ways to do it. As with all policy and regulatory innovations, there are affordances and limitations to every shift, and these are no different. I can’t state this too strongly. These suggestions have significant implications. In fact, some might argue that the risk or danger in implementing some of these is too great. I’ll leave that up to others to discuss for now (although I’m always ready for further conversation and work about this).

1. Clock hours and credit hours

There is already plenty of good discussion about the limitations of the existing system. Where HEA and accreditation agencies leave a little room for experimentation, that is limited right now, leaving people nervous about going through the necessary steps to pursue a format that leaves courses, credits, and clock hours behind. The HEA already has a special provision for nursing schools in this regard. Just take that and extend to across all higher education.

By the way, for organizations with athletic programs, there is need for athletic associations to catch up as well, broadening things well beyond GPA, credit hours, etc. There is already some flexibility, but being more explicit about that flexibility, offering it more broadly, will open doors for innovation.

2. The 200+ page complexity of the current Higher Education Authorization Act plus the overall complexity of federal financial aid in general.

I noticed a Tweet yesterday from a frustrated student, noting that the process for financial aid is more complex than any work she actually gets in pursuit of her college degree. That is a sure sign that something is not right. It needs to be simplified and streamlined to encourage innovation in these new areas. Complex regulations do not provide fertile soil for innovation. It scares off many of the small and medium-sized higher education institutions that want to explore the possibilities of these new areas, and rewards the higher education institutions with deep government and regulatory connections, and likely multiple people on staff dedicated to such matters. Scan the list of most of the direct assessment programs that launched early on, and you will see this is the case with the  majority.  This is the exact opposite of the trend in the startup world.

Also consider that I happened to help spearhead one of only a few small to medium private liberal arts colleges with a wide scale online operation that is managed almost entirely by internal teams. Why? It is easier to outsource, especially when the regulations are so complex and things are so uncertain. Complexity in the regulations breeds fear and caution…both of which are the enemy of innovation.

3. The HEA dedicated exceptions for Western Governor’s University

A higher education innovation / initiative supported by a group of governors gets a dedicated section in the Higher Education Authorization Act. How does that establish a level playing field for innovation in online learning and competency-based education. While I understand the reasons (at least a couple of them) for initially including it, it is time to remove special consideration for one initiative and offer the same provisions for all IHEs.

4. Limited definitions of programs and certificates.

Open up the definition to allow for non-credit and other forms of training, and you will see a wealth of innovation develop in these areas.

5. Regional accrediting agency expectations of faculty.

I’m a faculty member and I value the professoriate, but there are new models for both education and training that do not depend upon traditional concepts of instructor or the formal credentials normally expected of those people. As long as students are thriving and learning (and there is evidence of as much), why add limitations by being too explicit in expectations about credentials? This doesn’t just inhibit innovation in online learning and competency-based education. It prevents innovations around interdisciplinary education and interesting experiments in alternative higher education. There are also emerging and existing models that do not depend as much on traditional measures of faculty-student ratios. and there are a growing number of exceptionally gifted people who didn’t go the standard routes to achieve excellence. The current regulations often prevent them from teaching the next generation in higher education.

6. The limitation to 35 institutions for direct assessment.

This should probably go without saying, but limiting the direct assessment “experiment” to 35 is slowing down innovation. Let’s open it up.

7. Discouragement of Micro-Innovations

Some individual departments within Universities would love to invest in designing robust competency-based programs, but it isn’t worth the institutional investment to pilot on individual program levels when the experiment is so limited (as in the 35 mentioned above) and with people wondering how the DOE or their regional accreditation agency will treat their innovation. There are many ways to get at this. At minimum, it would be great to create a provision where a program can gain approval to run a micro-innovation (like a CBE program) with limited restrictions for a 4-5 year time period. You can even limit the enrollment if you want. A single voice on this from the DOE and regional accreditation agencies would make it even more promising.

8. Regulations about governance, organizational structures and partnerships need to be adjusted.

Yes, there are certainly examples of suspect partnerships and arrangements, but the explicit or implicit regulations or policies also prevent potentially promising models from being piloted. Who wants to be the next Tiffin University / Ivy Bridge?

9. Transfer Credits

Accreditors expect institutions to have set policies for transfer credit. That makes sense. There are emerging models, like with CBE and micro-credentials, that make it possible to envision a future route toward a degree as coming from piecing together learning evidence and credentials from multiple institutions over time. Leaving more flexibility for such models would allow for these innovations to emerge more easily. There are not strict regulations about transfer credits right now, but I include it because there seems to be something here that could serve as a powerful lever, especially by expanding transfer credit beyond other regionally accredited IHEs.

10. Expand “Higher Education”

The definition of a higher education institution can be broadened today to include so much more than colleges and Universities. There are new experiments and models already in existence. Some are more holistic educational institutions. Others are more training-oriented or focused on workforce development. Right now there are a limited number of regional or national accrediting agencies that give an organization an opportunity to participate in the federal financial aid program. Broaden that to include more oversight agencies or even a model that allows for the organization of a new external agency for accountability.

11. Provisions for Unbundling

There are models now like PelotonU that are providing the student support and much more while having students enroll in one of several existing online CBE programs at Universities. Create provisions for financial aid available to pay for such additional unbundled services (without their needing a formal partnership with an IHE) and we will see some fascinating experiments emerge.

12. Ease the pathway to starting new higher education institutions.

Even while some have predicted that have the higher education institutions in existence today will not be in the next 15 years, there is a counter to that, one that imagines a future of more IHEs than ever, with a wonderfully diverse collection of niche, boutique and alternative higher education models. If you want more innovation, make it easier for people to enter the higher education space. I will be writing more about this example soon, but Wayfinder Academy is one such example. They are working through the state of Oregon and plan to pursue regional accreditation, but there are others with equally compelling and innovative models of online, CBE and higher education in general that are not opening because of the existing complexity and barriers. Anything that can be done to lower the risk and cost of entry will create a new wave of innovation.

Why the Higher Learning Commission Has the Wrong Measure for “Qualified Faculty”?

If you are a higher education institution seeking to gain or keep up regional accreditation, one of the many expectations is that you have “qualified faculty.” What do people mean by that? I’m fascinated with this question because US regional accrediting agencies seem to be stuck in a past age and are answering that question in a way that risks undermining the goal of Universities as places with the “best” faculty (especially for more applied fields) while also adding a challenges in the competition higher education institutions get from education providers beyond traditional academia. Just as we start reading about news like the University of Microsoft, LinkedIn meets Lynda.com and alternative paths to expertise, regional accreditors are perhaps unknowingly making sure Universities are at a disadvantage.

Answers to the question give us insight into fundamental beliefs and values related to higher education. They help us understand whether certain stakeholders, like regional accreditors, are more interested in maintaining things as they are, or true educational innovation and determining the extent to which a person has adequate expertise to teach a given course on the college level.

Consider the follow excerpts from a 2014 Higher Learning Commission document on guidelines for determining qualified faculty:

Faculty teaching in higher education institutions should have completed a program of study in the discipline or subfield in which they will teach, and/or for which they will develop curricula, with coursework at least one level above that of the courses being taught or developed. Successful completion of a coherent degree better prepares a person than an unstructured collection of credit courses.

Qualified faculty are identified primarily by credentials, but other factors may be considered in addition to the degrees earned.

Elsewhere, they mention that alternatives to credentials should be the exception, not the norm. What does this mean? The document goes on to further explain that the largely non-negotiable or standard measure for faculty qualification comes down to credentials. If you teach a MBA finance course, then you should have substantive coursework completed in finance on the doctoral level. If you are teaching an undergraduate course in entrepreneurship, it is nice that you started a dozen successful businesses, but the standard should normally focus instead of whether you have a graduate degree or substantive graduate coursework completed in entrepreneurship. If you are teaching creative writing on the master’s level, show me your doctoral work in creative writing. Yes, maybe you’ve published several award-winning pieces of fiction or served as senior editor at one of the top publishing houses in the world, but the credentials are the non-negotiable part. This makes complete sense for many who live in academia and depend upon it for their livelihood. It doesn’t make nearly as much sense beyond the walls of higher education. Maybe doctoral work in finance is valuable for a CFO, but what we really want is hard evidence that a prospective CFO knows her stuff and can do the job. As Google started to publicize in 2013 after conducting a study, GPA and credentials don’t cut it when trying to find the best people.

A standard like this sets up Universities to maintain accreditation by having wonderfully credentialed people who may or may not provide evidence that they can use or apply their knowledge and skill in contexts beyond the ivory tower. This doesn’t do much when it comes to showing society the deep value and relevance of higher education. We do that partly by filling it with faculty/mentors who are deeply knowledgable and skilled in their various disciplines (and in teaching/mentoring), not by lifting up the value of credentialism, the notion of protecting a profession by having strict requirements for certain credentials…perhaps even over the value of having the most truly qualified people. Even as I interact with more employers who are realizing that the credential is less valuable than demonstrable knowledge and skill, higher education accreditors are pushing back, insisting that faculty not simply be deeply qualified, but that faculty prove their qualifications in a very narrow way (show me that piece of paper). Yes, even as paths to expertise widen and vary, accreditors narrow the path to professor.

While some argue this maintains a high academic standard and protects the students, it seems far more focused on protecting the beloved traditional role of the professorate from sometimes more qualified people. “If I had to jump through certain academic hoops to become a professor, then the next generation should have to do the same.” Yet, we are in a new generation, a connected world where there are more options for ongoing learning and professional development than ever before. And like past generations, it remains true that some of the most skilled and knowledgable people in many disciplines and areas of study do not have significant credentials.

We only need to look at the exceptions to see why the enforcement of a credential approach to faculty qualifications is inadequate in some fields of study. Consider people like Joseph Blatt, who is the Faculty Director of the Technology, Innovation and Education graduate program at Harvard Graduate School of Education, but only lists a master’s degree on his vitae. I have no doubt that he is superbly qualified for the job, but the regional accrediting guidelines say that the Jo Blatt’s should only be the exceptions. Why? Would graduates of Harvard Graduate School walk away with a sub-par degree if most or nearly all the faculty with whom they took courses demonstrated their competence in ways like Blatt? Of course not. Beyond this one instance, history and modern times are full of faculty who are remarkably qualified apart from meeting the credential standard set out above, and the connected world will continue to make these “exceptions” more commonplace. If we really want higher education institutions to be beacons of high-impact learning and the pinnacle of excellence in various ares of study, why would we limit the pool of potential faculty by credentials…unless our interest has more to do with protecting the status of credentials?

Answers to this question about how to decide if faculty are qualified also give us a glimpse into the extent to which higher education institutions are given a disadvantage in competition with the growing number of educational offerings outside of higher education, companies and organizations that are not bound by standards from regional accreditors or the U.S. Department of Education (at least in the United States). Consider open courses, online tutorials, online live tutors and mentors, training resources, education workshops and conferences, webinars, professional certifications, conferences, and similar learning opportunities. Few of these pay as much attention to the formal credentials of the teacher as they do to the quality of the learning experiences and the outcomes of the learner. While some of these, like MOOCs, do still often rely on traditionally credentialed people, many of the others do not. Their value and the demand for what they offer depends upon whether they deliver on what they offer. Do people get what they need and want out of it. Does the education work or truly help people learn what they need to learn? That is a far more direct measure than whether the person who designed the webinar or learning experience has certain letters behind her name. Especially when it comes to lifelong learning and graduate programming, these other forms of education have the upper hand. They have full access to the larger pool of deeply qualified content designers and facilitators, where higher education institutions are only limited to the highest credentialed people.

In fact, even academia doesn’t look at credentials when it comes to judging the quality of research in peer-reviewed publications and conferences. If a person produced great research, it is possible for a high school drop out to beat out a PhD for a presentation spot at a place like the American of Education Research Association conference. The measure is the quality of your work, not your collection of credentials.

Look ahead a decade. Which one do you think will win out in the competition for the time, investment and attention of 21st century lifelong learners, the unregulated education providers or the highly regulated higher education institutions? Even with new experiments and innovations like competency-based education programs, accreditors seem focused on the legacy approach to measuring faculty qualifications. It appears that higher education institutions are free to innovate as long as they do so in the nicely prescribed box outlined by aging standards and processes that put them at a disadvantage in the larger education landscape. My concern is that restrictions like this might leave more higher education institutions watching much of the education action on the sidelines, staring longingly behind unnecessary fences set by outside agencies and organizations.

10 Higher Education Trends to Watch in 2015 & Beyond

Thanks to the University of Wisconsin Madison Department of Educational Policy Studies and the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE), I enjoyed sharing a draft paper and informal comments yesterday on When For-Profit and Non-Profit Meet: Monopolists, Entrepreneurs and Academics in Higher Education. I might be able to share a polished version of that paper at some point, but driving back from the event, I realized that I have failed to share my predictions post for this current year, something that I’ve done each year since 2012. So, five months into the year, here goes. I’ve decided to focus this list mainly on higher education trends and innovations, although some of them have parallels in the K-12 sector. These do not necessarily reflect the paper or comments shared in the mentioned presentation, but there is certainly some overlap.

Which trends should we watch in the second half of 2015 and beyond? This represents one of the more common types of questions people ask me. Which trends in education are most noteworthy? Which ones will persist and grow? Which ones will fade and wither? I try to add an important disclaimer when I step into a futurist role, even the near future, because education is one of those deeply political and regulated sectors, adding plenty of uncertainties in any claims. Nonetheless, here is my short list of ten. None of them are new, but I expect them to gain increased attention into the second half of 2015 and well beyond this year. Or, in some cases, look for interesting pivots or adjustments in these areas.

Customized / Personalized Programming

Some  higher education institutions are not positioned to respond to this growing request. As such, this is a promising opportunity for the more agile colleges and universities, continuing education units, as well as a range of education companies interested in providing training, courses, or educational opportunities. What I’m referring to here is the idea of a company or organization partnering with a University or an education company to create and offer custom training, courses, degrees, or programming. It might be a partnership to create a custom leadership training program for those who show promise in a given company. It might be a business school that offers a special cohort MBA program for a given employer, agreeing to integrate case studies and other elements that are directly related to that company. It might be a school district partnering with a college to design professional development (for credit or more) that helps teachers pursue specific district goals for improving student learning. There are so many possibilities. While this is not new, this approach is gaining more attention. A growing number of Universities are showing the interest and willingness to pursue these partnership. At the same time, we see existing education companies ramping up their capacity for these services as well as startups that specialize in such a model. For the latter, it isn’t the type of model that gains extensive interest from investors because such personalization sometimes prevents the scaling that leads to the payoffs they are seeking. As such, this leaves ample opportunity for willing colleges and Universities along with boutique education businesses.

Educational Partnerships

I’ve already written about the Starbucks / ASU partnership, but this is just the beginning. Expect to see several other high-profile announcements of similar partnerships over the next couple of years. Also scan the growing size of offices in Universities dedicated to building external partnerships. For the colleges, this helps them save marketing dollars, and sometimes allows them to pass that savings on the the students. For the employers, they have an employee perk to keep good talent, and raise up the next group of leaders by investing in their education. The PR for both sides doesn’t hurt either.

Big Data & Business Analytics in Education

Advancement wants it. Admission wants it. Marketing wants it. Professional advising staff wants it. More higher education leaders are interested in dashboards that give them a snapshot of the University status regarding key performance indicators. As blended and online learning grows, there are also more data points about student and faculty behavior that are recorded and can be mined. This world of informatics and analytics is growing quickly, and it is a massive money maker for software providers. Consider how some healthcare systems are paying a quarter of a billion dollars or more for implementations of new informatics systems. While not typical at that price point, Universities have already started investing hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) to implement data warehouses and analytic software. I don’t expect it to gain as much traction among faculty in the classroom this year, expect where there is experimentation with adaptive learning and the like, but that will potentially come within the next 2-4 years.

Alternative Education Meets Higher Education

I’m probably a little early on this one, but I still expect to see signs of it over the next 12-24 months. What I’m referring to is a form of what we’ve seen happening with independent schools, charter schools and magnet schools on the K-12 level. We see project-based schools, classical schools, self-directed learning academics, place-based learning schools, leadership academies, etc. I expect to see an equivalent emerge in the higher education space. Look for more colleges and Universities offering niche routes (sort of like the already existent honors colleges at some schools, but focused on niche approaches like project-based learning, service-learning, even self-directed learning. In addition, while this is not nearly as easy of a development, I expect to see the announcement of at least a few new higher education institutions over the next 1-2 years that have interesting niches and approaches, schools like Minerva or more long-standing schools like Antioch College, Bennington College, Goddard College and Prescott College.

Virtual Reality in Education 

This one will probably gain more traction on the k-12 level in 2015, but look for it to make a few headlines in higher education in 2015 and 2016 as well, especially given that some of the software is starting to catch up with the hardware in this industry. Events like the Silicon Valley Virtual Reality Conference will give us a glimpse into near future uses in higher education.

The Rise of Higher Education Beyond Regionally Accredited Entities

As we continue to see the Department of Education and regional accrediting bodies trying to make sense of the developments and innovations in higher education, it puts innovation Universities at a disadvantage, especially the smaller to mid-sized schools. As a result, we will see foundations giving even more interest to education companies that are not bound by things like the federal financial aid system or regional accreditation. Expect more announcements from new and existing companies that provide courses, training, credentials, and “degrees” of their own; but not part of the standard regionally accredited higher education system. Many of these will earn their credibility through close connections, conversations and sometimes formal partnership with employers and professional organizations that oversee credentials for a given trade or field of work.

MOOC Credentials

We’ve heard a little bit about it in the past, and while I’m still not one to jump on the claims that MOOCs will make traditional higher education obsolete, this year and next will be the time when we see the growth of credentials (certificates, badges, etc.) and even traditional college credit being associated with learning demonstrated through MOOCs. Coursera and EdX are already engaged with this to some extent, but expect other players and for credentials from these sources to be refined, expanded, and gaining more traction. It should probably go without stating that there will be tension and push back on this one.

Competency-based Education

The Competency-based Education Network accepted its second group of 30 schools into the network in 2015 (I work at one of the new member schools). Beyond that network, I’m also directly aware of countless schools that have moved from interest to formal exploration, experimentation, and even implementation of competency-based programming. The scope of this trends impact will surprise many in higher education.

Self-Directed Learning

The most attention to this topic will continue to come beyond the walls of formal higher education. However, interest in self-directed learning is a natural progression of the digital revolution, driven by a combination of increased access to online content, resources, communities, etc; as well as education companies targeting “learners” with apps, services, and resources that allow them to reach formal and informal learning goals.

Self-Blended Learning

This is essentially self-directed learning finding its way in the formal learning environment. As more resources for learning emerge online and college students become further informed about them; we will continue to see creative and unexpected student-led “blends” used to help them find success in school and to achieve personal goals that are not being adequately supported by the formal college experience.

There are plenty of other trends that are likely to grow and expand, but I’m confident that these ten are here to stay. Expect to see them in more headlines, to learn about new products and services focused upon them, and for them to become more common aspects of higher education discourse.