“Edinburgh School Takes Online M.B.A. to Africa” plus 1 more |
| Edinburgh School Takes Online M.B.A. to Africa Posted: 19 Sep 2010 03:38 PM PDT LONDON — Joma Simuyi, Tony Moonja and Sinikiwe Sithole are not typical candidates for an M.B.A. Ms. Simuyi, a Zambian mother of four children, works in her country's Ministry of Agriculture. Mr. Moonja is a program manager for ECLOF, the Ecumenical Microfinance for Human Development, which provides access to small but potentially life-changing amounts of credit for the poor. Ms. Sithole is a Zimbabwean refugee in South Africa who works on H.I.V./AIDS prevention in rural communities. None of them have the resources — or the time— to enroll in a conventional M.B.A. course. Yet because of a new program at Heriot-Watt University's Edinburgh Business School, up to 250 students from Africa will be given full scholarships to enter Edinburgh's online M.B.A. — considered one of the world's best distance-learning business degrees. "We wanted to establish an initiative to promote life-long learning across the continent," said Professor Keith Lumsden, director of Edinburgh Business School. "Africa needs assistance to help develop its full potential, and with these scholarships we are offering 250 individuals the chance to make a difference – not only to their own lives but to the wider communities around them." With more than 8,000 students scattered across the globe, the Edinburgh M.B.A. program puts all lectures and reading material online. Exams are held twice a year in more than 350 centers around the world, including African countries from Algeria to Zimbabwe. "The exams they sit are exactly the same as students in Edinburgh or New York," said Alick Kitchin, the school's business director and a key architect of the scholarship scheme. "There is no easy ride." Made up of nine courses, each costing £650, or $1,015 — students in Africa, India and China already are charged a reduced fee; European and American students pay £800 per course — the M.B.A. would otherwise cost nearly £6,000. For Joma Simuyi, who graduated in November, managing to finish the five-year course in just two years, the value of her degree can't be measured in money alone. "It really opened me up to new ideas and new ways of thinking," she said. "I've worked in government for 20 years, first at the Ministry of Finance and now at Agriculture. And though most of the cases we studied were in the business or financial sectors, the same things we learned commercially can be applied in the public sector." Ms. Simiyu's fees were paid by her government. But Mr. Moonja's employer couldn't afford to pay for his continuing education. "I was admitted to a Dutch program two years ago but couldn't secure funding. Then I applied to a Swedish scholarship, only to be told that since I came from outside the European Union I wasn't eligible. So when I heard about the E.B.S. scholarship I was very excited," he said. Though he has only completed one course, in organizational behavior, Mr. Moonja said he was already benefiting. "The course was really practical and very applicable to my current work environment. I'm program manager but our organization is not that big and it really helped me to understand the other roles I also have to fill." According to Alex Vines, director of Africa programs at Chatham House, an institute of international affairs in London, such persistence is not unusual. "Africa does not suffer from a lack of entrepreneurship. Africans have to be incredibly entrepreneurial just to avoid poverty," he said. African universities suffer from the same scarcity of resources that afflicts the continent as a whole. "The quality of teaching is variable," he said. "And historically, African universities have been plagued by a lack of funding, brain drain, even erratic supplies of electricity." Yet the Edinburgh program might have been designed with such pitfalls in mind. To be eligible for scholarships, students not only have to demonstrate financial hardship, they also have to show how they plan to use their degrees to benefit their communities. Distance learning means the students remain in Africa, and in most cases continue in their jobs while the course materials are designed to be downloaded, minimizing both high internet access costs and problems caused by unreliable power supplies. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Nicholas Lemann: Is American education really in crisis? Posted: 19 Sep 2010 09:02 PM PDT A hundred years ago, eight and a half per cent of American seventeen-year-olds had a high-school degree, and two per cent of twenty-three-year-olds had a college degree. Now, on any given weekday morning, you will find something like fifty million Americans, about a sixth of the population, sitting under the roof of a public-school building, and twenty million more are students or on the faculty or the staff of an institution of higher learning. Education is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution; the creation of the world's first system of universal public education—from kindergarten through high school—and of mass higher education is one of the great achievements of American democracy. It embodies a faith in the capabilities of ordinary people that the Founders simply didn't have. It is also, like democracy itself, loose, shaggy, and inefficient, full of redundancies and conflicting goals. It serves many constituencies and interest groups, each of which, in the manner of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, sees its purpose differently. But, by the fundamental test of attractiveness to students and their families, the system—which is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and decentralized—is, as a whole, succeeding. Enrollment in charter schools is growing rapidly, but so is enrollment in old-fashioned public schools, and enrollments are rising at all levels. Those who complete a higher education still do better economically. Measures of how much American students are learning—compared to the past, and compared to students in other countries—are holding steady, for the most part, even as more people are going to school. So it's odd that a narrative of crisis, of a systemic failure, in American education is currently so persuasive. This back-to-school season, we have Davis Guggenheim's documentary about the charter-school movement, "Waiting for 'Superman' "; two short, dyspeptic books about colleges and universities, "Higher Education?," by Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, and "Crisis on Campus," by Mark C. Taylor; and a lot of positive attention to the school-reform movement in the national press. From any of these sources, it would be difficult to reach the conclusion that, over all, the American education system works quite well. The school-reform story draws its moral power from the heartbreakingly low quality of the education that many poor, urban, and minority children in public schools get. This problem isn't new, and the historical context is important: one of the cornerstones of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which for the first time directed substantial national funding to schools attended by these children. (George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind was technically a tweak to Johnson's law, and Barack Obama is incorporating his education-reform ideas into another tweak.) The gap in educational achievement between black and white children narrowed during the nineteen-seventies and eighties, and has been mainly stuck since then, but it's misleading to suggest that the gap is getting bigger. It should raise questions when an enormous, complicated realm of life takes on the characteristics of a stock drama. In the current school-reform story, there is a reliable villain, in the form of the teachers' unions, and a familiar set of heroes, including Geoffrey Canada, of Harlem Children's Zone; Wendy Kopp, of Teach for America, the Knowledge Is Power Program; and Michele Rhee, the superintendent of schools in Washington, D.C. And there is a clear answer to the problem—charter schools. The details of this story are accurate, but they are fitted together too neatly and are made to imply too much. For example, although most of the specific charter schools one encounters in this narrative are very good, the data do not show that charter schools in general are better than district schools. There are also many school-reform efforts besides charter schools: the one with the best sustained record of producing better-educated children in difficult circumstances, in hundreds of schools over many years, is a rigorously field-tested curriculum called Success for All, but because it's not part of the story line it goes almost completely unmentioned. Similarly, on the issue of tenure, the clear implication of most school-reform writing these days—that abolishing teacher tenure would increase students' learning—is an unproved assumption. In higher education, the reform story isn't so fully baked yet, but its main elements are emerging. The system is vast: hundreds of small liberal-arts colleges; a new and highly leveraged for-profit sector that offers degrees online; community colleges; state universities whose budgets are being cut because of the recession; and the big-name private universities, which get the most attention. You wouldn't design a system this way—it's filled with overlaps and competitive excess. Much of it strives toward an ideal that took shape in nineteenth-century Germany: the university as a small, élite center of pure scholarly research. Research is the rationale for low teaching loads, publication requirements, tenure, tight-knit academic disciplines, and other practices that take it on the chin from Taylor, Hacker, and Dreifus for being of little benefit to students or society. Yet for a system that—according to Taylor, especially—is deeply in crisis, American higher education is not doing badly. The lines of people wanting to get into institutions that the authors say are just waiting to cheat them by overcharging and underteaching grow ever longer and more international, and the people waiting in those lines don't seem deterred by price increases, even in a terrible recession. There have been attempts in the past to make the system more rational and less redundant, and to shrink the portion of it that undertakes scholarly research, but they have not met with much success, and not just because of bureaucratic resistance by the interested parties. Large-scale, decentralized democratic societies are not very adept at generating neat, rational solutions to messy situations. The story line on education, at this ill-tempered moment in American life, expresses what might be called the Noah's Ark view of life: a vast territory looks so impossibly corrupted that it must be washed away, so that we can begin its activities anew, on finer, higher, firmer principles. One should treat any perception that something so large is so completely awry with suspicion, and consider that it might not be true—especially before acting on it. We have a lot of recent experience with breaking apart large, old, unlovely systems in the confidence of gaining great benefits at low cost. We deregulated the banking system. We tried to remake Iraq. In education, we would do well to appreciate what our country has built, and to try to fix what is undeniably wrong without declaring the entire system to be broken. We have a moral obligation to be precise about what the problems in American education are—like subpar schools for poor and minority children—and to resist heroic ideas about what would solve them, if those ideas don't demonstrably do that. ♦ This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for online education degree To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment