Here we are continuing our discussion about how to found new colleges, that are much better than what we have today. It’s your own children, people. Don’t you care enough to get up off your ass?
Here we are again leaving aside the “Special Man and a shelf of books” model of homeschool-like college education, with as little as one student to begin, and considering starting with something a little bigger, as a Founder (wealthy person with an ambition to start a new institution) might be interested in. Our first class of incoming students might have 30-50 people, for which we have 2-5 initial Teachers. After four years, we have 100-200 students, which is already pretty big, and we can grow from there.
But whether you start small or larger, a college is not just students, teachers and buildings baked in a cake. The core of a college is a vision and a goal, expressed as a Method of education, and the Content of education (curriculum). In other words, we don’t want to just replicate the same old mistakes.
Taking the pieces from the liquidation of existing colleges. Many colleges today will liquidate. This is a good thing. We will get rid of the crap, and keep the good stuff. The parts that make up the college will become liberalized; and with these elements, we can create afresh. We have already looked at college campuses themselves, hundreds of which will be coming up for sale over the next decade. Here is another one: the former campus of Green Mountain College, in Vermont.
It was previously listed at $23 million, but didn’t sell. Now, it is up for auction with a $3 million minimum bid. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is no one to bid for it even at that price. Who wants to start a college in this environment? What else are you going to use it for? The land itself, in rural Vermont, is not worth much. Well, the answer is: We want to start a college, so let’s see what you can get for $3 million.
22 buildings
447,000+ sf total space
Housing for 654 students
Library
Indoor Pool
Theater
These buildings are of fairly high quality, and would probably cost $200+/sf to build new. So, if you were going to build this from a green field, not counting any land cost (rural VT land is cheap), then you are looking at 447,000 x $200 = $89,400,000 to build new. We are potentially paying $3m, or $6.71 per square foot.
UPDATE: The campus of Green Mountain College was purchased by whiskey entrepreneur Danhee Bhakta, for $4.55 million.
But the shutdown of existing colleges involves not only the property. There are other important elements to a college that are also now free to go elsewhere: the professors, the administrators, and the students.
The students are, arguably, somewhat interchangeable. We will attract new students with a much better deal: a much better education, at a much lower price.
Many of the professors are corrupt and useless, and would better serve society if they became condo salesmen. But, let’s say that 50% of them (this might be overly generous) would serve very well in our new college, or one like it. So, in the liquidation process, we get rid of the crap among the professional academics, and keep that which has long-term value. Many of these worthy academics have been suffering under poor pay and hideous administration, and would be much better off at our new college.
Much the same applies to the administrators. 80% of them (again I am perhaps overly generous) should find some other line of business to make use of their skills. But, a few of them probably have something to offer, from their skills in the day-to-day management of institutions like this, or their skills in fundraising, or attracting students.
Probably, our new college should be headed by someone who is not a professional academic administrator, but perhaps, a business executive who has an interest in creating a new educational institution, with certain goals and aspirations. This might be a nice early-retirement job for someone in their mid-50s.
Who will be the teachers? What kind of person would make a good Teacher in our new colleges? First of all, this is a college, not a university. The purpose of a college is undergraduate education. The purpose of a university is to provide a home for specialists in a wide range of interesting topics.
For a university, we want to have a difficult and selective process by which we can find top talent to take one of our rare positions to maintain and expand expertise in these specialist fields. If we have a position as a professor of Chinese history, we want to find someone of great ability who really, really knows a lot about Chinese history. The typical markers of such a person are success in gaining attention for their work in a competitive process: in practice, this means writing academic papers, writing books, and getting research grants.
But, the person who devotes their time to writing papers, writing books, and doing new research supported by grants — and who must compete against others doing the same — is one that is not spending their time teaching undergraduates, and caring for the needs of undergraduates on a personal, individual level. They try to spend as little of their time at this as possible. Probably, they are not very good at it. Often, this is shunted off to graduate student TAs and underpaid adjunct professors.
We do not want these kinds of people at our college. We want people who are filled with enthusiasm for teaching the very basics of these topics to nineteen-year-olds; and who spend all their time and attention doing that. These kinds of people often also write books, but that is more of a sideline hobby and not their career. The basic model is that of a high-school teacher, for example a teacher at an elite private boarding school. We can imagine that the history teacher at an elite private boarding school might also write a book about history, because the kinds of people that we want at an elite private boarding school are the kinds of people who do that. But, this is not his job, and it would also be fine if he didn’t write books.
The kind of people that we want are enthusiastic about forming a direct, personal relationship with the students, to guide them along the process of educating themselves; not people who are interested primarily in forming a direct, personal relationship with influential professionals in their field from whom they can get attention and favors, in the competitive process of establishing oneself as one of the top experts in some superspecialized topic.
Again, the example of the elite private boarding school is not a bad one to keep in mind. Like our College, a high-school-level elite Academy has a mostly unified curriculum, that all the Teachers have taken part in (they have all graduated from a high school with a similar curriculum). If you imagine such an academy, for example Phillips Exeter, Choate or Hotchkiss, but upgrade the curriculum to an undergraduate level, that would not be a bad model to keep in mind. Nevertheless, the model I have in mind is more unified than this, as it does not break down, as a typical high school does, into departments and classes led by specialized Teachers.
Our sample curriculum has one book about Chinese history. We need someone who can choose one good book, and is familiar with the book; for example, by reading it first. They should express enthusiasm for Chinese history — or, at least, enthusiasm for reading one good book about Chinese history. (One of the main tasks of our Teachers is to Inspire our Students to study Chinese history, rather than drinking beer and playing video games.) They should be able to talk intelligently about the patterns and lessons of Chinese history. At the very least, if they haven’t read it yet, they should read the book at the same time that the students are reading the book … enthusiastically … and bring to the discussion of it their mature insight and wisdom. This is enough.
Many of our Teachers might not be academics. They may not have PhDs. They should be well educated, with intellectual inclinations, but they may have a history in private business. At the very minimum, they may be people with a sound educational background, who are interested in educating themselves. All the Teachers at our school should have the same education as they are imparting to their Students. In other words, they should read the same books as the Students read in the college’s curriculum. That means that someone who has a background as a professor of economics also has to read The Story of Civilization; and someone who has a background as a professor of English also has to read Human Action. Since probably none of our prospective Teachers — whether with an academic background, or from private business — are likely to have done this previously, or even a small fraction of it, the end result will be that all of our Teachers will end up educating themselves in much the manner as we expect Students to educate themselves, by reading the books, and talking about them. This would probably take several years. In some sense, everyone is starting from scratch.
I think of people like Congressman Ron Paul (a medical doctor), John Allison (formerly of BB&T Bank), or Senator Mike Lee (formerly a lawyer) as examples of the kind of intellectually-oriented people with a background in private industry who would make good Teachers at our college. We probably do not want all, or even most, of our Teachers to be professional academics. Our school must have a strong sense that it is one step toward a lifetime of practical vocation; and there is nobody better to help guide this, and also express enthusiasm for vocation, than a man of business.
Probably, after some years, a fair number of our Teachers will be former Students, perhaps after an interim either in graduate school or in private business.
Focus vs. Quantity. The book list in my sample curriculum is fairly ambitious. It would take a lot of time and effort just to read them, once. There is a balance between Focus and Quantity in education. I have tended toward Quantity. But, you can make an argument toward Focus: for example, by spending a lot of time and effort on just one book. You might spend many days discussing one point after another. You might read it several times through. You might write a paper about it.
For example, you can read a play by Shakespeare in one day. In five days, you could read five plays. Or, you could spend the same amount of time, with greater focus on just one play. You could read the play through for the first time on Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday, you go through it again, line by line, and make sure you understand every nuance, every reference, every plot twist, and use the glossary to understand every word. This takes a lot of time and effort, which is why we spend two days on it. Then, on Thursday, we watch a performance of the play, for example from a recorded video, hopefully with new eyes and ears after all our careful study and increased familiarity, and with new appreciation for the subtleties and artistry of the work. On Friday, we write a short paper about it, expressing our reactions to the play in text. Also, during this time, we are discussing points of the play with others, for one to two hours per day. The end result is that we spend a whole week on one play.
This does not look as impressive, as a booklist. It has just one play, instead of five. It is shorter, and seemingly, less complete. But, it may be more worthwhile.
