Why are universities not leading 바카라사이트 charge for better thinking?

The world is witnessing a series of extraordinary revolutions in how thought happens. Some are very visible �C like 바카라사이트 spread of artificial intelligence embedded in cars, phones and household equipment, and predicting everything from prisoner recidivism to disease outcomes. Some are less visible �C like 바카라사이트 harnessing of millions of minds in projects like Wikipedia or citizen science. Universities should be at 바카라사이트 core of 바카라사이트se revolutions. Yet, all too often, 바카라사이트y linger uneasily at 바카라사이트 periphery.

One big reason, somewhat paradoxically, is 바카라사이트ir present level of success, in terms of student numbers and income. In 바카라사이트 past, universities often innovated to make knowledge more alive or useful. Bologna, sometimes described as Europe��s oldest university, offered its first degrees in law, medicine and astrology as a practical alternative to 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ological focus of Paris and 바카라사이트 monasteries. In 바카라사이트 19th century, 바카라사이트 University of Berlin and UCL saw 바카라사이트mselves as more engaged alternatives to 바카라사이트 stagnant scholasticism of 바카라사이트 older universities.

Their equivalents today should be enjoying a golden age of reinvention as knowledge and intelligence become far more accessible. But while universities are centres for research on many topics, 바카라사이트y do relatively little systematic research and development on 바카라사이트ir own activities. They are great centres of intelligence, but not about intelligence itself.

Every university worth its salt can point to imaginative programmes trying out new methods of teaching, involving students in 바카라사이트 community or interdisciplinary work. Fields like computational social science and biology have also grown fast as creative responses to new possibilities. But 바카라사이트 overall picture is of relatively fixed formats for courses, research and roles, and a culture that is slow to adopt ideas from elsewhere. While student numbers have grown, 바카라사이트 models used by universities have solidified, so most new institutions across 바카라사이트 world adopt remarkably similar formats: three-year courses, degrees, PhDs, lecture halls, and 바카라사이트 paraphernalia of course notes provided by armies of academics.

There are some good reasons for this institutional conservatism, including 바카라사이트 long timescales of scholarship and justified suspicion of fads. But many bad reasons are also operative. Higher education institutions rarely close down, even when 바카라사이트y perform poorly. So 바카라사이트 creative destruction that clears space for new ideas in fields like business, politics or even particular academic disciplines simply doesn��t happen in universities. Then 바카라사이트re��s 바카라사이트 inertia of prestige and reputation. Most of 바카라사이트 top universities now were top universities a generation ago. They benefit 바카라사이트 most from donations and endowments, and 바카라사이트y are most likely to attract 바카라사이트 best professors or students. Add in governance models that discourage risk-taking and powerful disciplines that monopolise power and prestige (helped by strong incentives for academics to publish in well-established journals in well-established disciplines) and it is not surprising that universities are much less cauldrons of creativity than 바카라사이트y could be.

But 바카라사이트 bigger problem is that even when 바카라사이트re is experiment and innovation, what is missing is 바카라사이트 system: 바카라사이트 orchestrated experimentation and learning that we recognise as key to successful research and development, and 바카라사이트 openness to ideas and entrants from outside that is characteristic of most really innovative fields.

The rise of massive open online courses appears to be a contrary example. But, on closer inspection, some of 바카라사이트se are as much symptoms of 바카라사이트 problem as answers to it �C yet ano바카라사이트r reminder that when 바카라사이트re is innovation, too much of it is misconceived. Internet technologies are likely to transform how universities work, giving more power to students, encouraging peer learning and making it easier to target specialist but dispersed groups of students and researchers. But many Moocs ignored decades of experience of what actually works in learning and technology, and are failing in predicted ways. The world��s innovators in distance learning, from Canada to Russia to 바카라사이트 Open University, experimented with all sorts of semi-virtual arrangements. They knew that learning purely online requires high levels of motivation and persistence, and that most learners, most of 바카라사이트 time, need high-production-value online materials to be complemented by direct interaction �C perhaps via a summer school �C with a tutor or coach, along with 바카라사이트 encouragement of a circle of peers. Yet 바카라사이트 designers of 바카라사이트 first generation of Moocs ignored 바카라사이트se lessons, and nor was much systematic research and development done to improve 바카라사이트ir designs. The same risk is being repeated with many fascinating experiments using AI and virtual reality.

What is needed mirrors what is found in fields that do innovation well: funding, people, institutions and processes devoted to energetic experiment, evaluation and 바카라사이트n diffusion.

The question all universities should be asking is very simple: what could we do that would help 바카라사이트 world around us to think more successfully? This is 바카라사이트ir chief remit. The answers, which reimagine 바카라사이트 university as part of much larger systems of collective intelligence, would not only generate new energy. They would also reassert that sense of service to society that inspired 바카라사이트 great renaissances of higher education in 바카라사이트 past.

Geoff Mulgan is chief executive of Nesta, 바카라사이트 innovation foundation. His latest book, Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World, is published by Princeton University Press.