The popular conversation about the digital transformation of higher education takes two common forms.  Some decry the dehumanizing effects of digital formats, and others embrace the changes seeing no risks, only rewards.

Almost every week there is word of a new digital partnership, educational startup or innovative mash-up in higher education.  These initiatives range from invalidating the previously sacrosanct concept of the college degree to global expansion of access, all the while accelerating the shift of ever more educational activity to a virtual world.

Those accepting innovation cite growing on-line course enrollments and test score statistics.  At the same time they argue that nothing of real meaning is being lost as face-to-face instruction leaves the classroom for the chat room.  At the same time, the traditionalists deny the benefits of digital content.  Rather than citing any facts, they rely on evoking images of a campus that is fading away.

Even when traditionalists acknowledge the unsustainable costs of the status quo, they tout the value they derive from the personal memory of a campus of the past – a common dreamscape as Ann Matthews calls it in “Bright College Years.”

The traditionalist shares a story to buttress belief that campus matters.  Perhaps the anecdote is about the time that a literature professor jumped up on the desk to read a particular poem, or about the single class meeting that opened up the possibilities of a life’s work.  Sometimes the anecdote mentions late night conversations about important ideas.  The storyteller’s vignettes are part of a dreamscape of campus that has already dimmed.

Superficially new buildings and occasionally the loss of an old landmark manifest the change.  More fundamentally, the change is seen in increased reliance on part-time instructors, accelerating online course attendance, and the fraying fabric of the institution’s community of faculty and students.

Across the country more than 60% of the instruction is provided by part-timers and more than half of the students work part-time.  The academic community is being atomized by the silent noise of digital media.   The financial viability of institutions is being compromised by growing competition that exposes weaknesses in their business models.    Still the traditionalist observers cling to the anecdotal defense of the campus of their common dreamscape.

Those who seriously doubt the authenticity of digital forms or merely are fearful of the digital transformation of higher education are not the only ones who wish to deny reality.   Last year college presidents were asked to predict a time when at least half of their students would be taking courses online for credit toward a degree.  The consensus answer was 10 years in the future.  For all of American higher education, that milestone was passed in 2011.

At the same time there is rising popular doubt about the costs and benefits of a traditional college degree.  The value of student loans now exceeds that of credit card debt.  The sticker price of attending a traditional college continues to outstrip inflation.  Competition is coming from all directions.  In such an environment the survival of every traditional institution cannot be taken for granted.

To be sure, there will be places that can afford to keep up appearances, just as there are always those who can afford luxury.  But for the rest of us, it is time to get serious in our thinking about the value of campuses lest we see them dim further.  For example, in “Space Strategies for the New Learning Landscape”, Shirley Dugdale argues it necessary to view the whole campus as learning space and enhance learning space beyond the campus.

This is a different way of thinking about the performance of a campus.   For campuses to survive, they must be more than a collection of the traditional physical artifacts that create stage sets for live-action reality shows.  The physical campus and what happens there will need to provide improved performance – added value to the educational experience.  For example, courses that use the best in digital forms but with masterful face-to-face teaching will be judged to be worth the price.  The rest will be in danger because ‘entirely-digital’ substitutes will be available at lower cost and more convenience.  Some have said this will make the mediocre lecture in a crowded room obsolete, and as a result economically unsustainable.

A traditionalist belief in the resilience of institutions is historically grounded, but the technological and economic contexts have changed.  Most institutions cannot afford to keep their current form.  Yet adaptation to a new reality is difficult and slow.  Providing sufficient speed will be a significant challenge for conventional campus planning and design practices.  Successful campuses will adapt, but in so doing they will further diverge from the fading dreamscape the traditionalists remember.  It is time for critical thinking about this task.  We all must recognize that just maintaining the dreamscape will not be enough.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.