Chris Dawson asked “What if my kid went to Dawson’s School of Online Learning?” He was referring to the idea of “educational aggregators, taking the best available online content and helping students build degrees to fit their needs”.

This is not the usual face-to-face (F2F) versus e-or-online learning debate. That topic is passe. (Why? Blended is best and overall online learners performed better than those bred only on F2F.)

The issue Dawson was thinking about was whether a Big Name (and Big Cost) University was better than a customised programme that was more meaningful to his children. Ask just about any Singaporean parent and they would rather send their kids to an Ivy League university. Right after they have sold an arm, a leg and a spare kidney.

I recall being asked to consider an Ivy League place when I was awarded a Ph.D. scholarship some years ago. I told the committee that interviewed me that none of the Ivy League universities were known in the field that I was interested in. The big and expensive names did not matter to me; the big and meaningful experience did.

So I agree with Dawson when he said that “the point should really be what my kids get out of higher education, not where they get their higher education”.

Sure, a Harvard degree will get your foot in the door. But if you are an asshole or incompetent, some other foot will kick you right out. Schooling is still about the grades and numbers. Education is about who you are and what you do.