Children of Older Fathers At Increasing Risk of Autism, Schizophrenia & More

A biological clock is ticking for men, too; they just don’t know it. It turns out that those legions of male sperm are more fragile than women’s ova, much more. Research indicates that the mutations in a woman’s ova are the same—15 on average—regardless of age. But the mutations in an average man’s sperm increase from 25 at age 20 to 65 at age 40! That is, there are more mutations in sperm to begin with and they increase about 260% between age 20 and 40. More, they have identified mutations that showed up only in autistic and schizophrenic children and the sperm of their fathers, mutations and risk that increase dramatically with age. They concluded that, “97% of the relevant genetic errors were attributable to the dad alone.” And there’s more, it’s not just about autism and schizophrenia. From the article:

"Men have had this 'I'm invincible' theory when it comes to reproduction," says social psychologist Susan Newman, who has written more than a dozen books on parenting and relationships. "The only thing they needed to worry about was sperm count." But for reasons both social and scientific, men may soon be worrying about a good deal more.  

Last August, a study in Nature found that older fathers face a significantly increased risk of siring a child with autism or schizophrenia, with mutations in sperm that may contribute to these conditions doubling for every 16.5 years a man ages. That paper followed an April 2012 study, also in Nature, that found older fathers are four times as likely as mothers to pass on autism-related genetic glitches, with the risk becoming especially acute after men turn just 35--precisely the age at which the ostensibly more-fragile female reproductive system is said to enter the danger zone. Between those two reports came a May study in the American Journal of Men's Health linking a father's age to preterm birth, low birth weight and stillbirth.  

These and other papers, some showing possible links between older dads and the occurrence of cleft palates and certain cancers, are leading to the inescapable conclusion that late fatherhood isn't just the amusing indulgence of an old man with a willing young wife but also a true health peril for kids, perhaps worse than those caused by an older mom. 

"The biological clock was always there for me," says Antoinette Vitale, 47, a former CPA and now a full-time mother living in Westchester County in New York. Vitale had her three children when she was 38, 40 and 42--the age range at which doctors and well-meaning relatives start sounding alarms. Her husband, who's a year older, was spared such procreative prodding. The next generation of fathers may not have it so easy. "Men haven't paid much attention to their biological clocks," says Newman, "and now they have to." 

---“Too Old to Be A Dad?” by Jeffrey Kluger, Time (4.22.2013)

 

But this is the first time I’ve heard or read this—and I hear and read quite a lot from all kinds of news sources, including reporting on health and science. How many times have you heard or read anything about increasing genetic deterioration in men’s sperm as they age, and the increasing danger to children they might father? How many understand this? I’m guessing most other men have not heard of this research either. As Ms. Newman is quoted, above, "Men haven't paid much attention to their biological clocks," and now they have to." But first, they have to educate men. And that would require broad-based educational programs, national programs, to inform men, women, couples—all who share in the responsibility for bringing children into the world. Shouldn’t all understand the elevated levels of risks contributed by older men, risks that appear as great or greater than those contributed by older women?

 

Still, before we get too exercised about the risks involved, let me note that the absolute risks of an older father or a younger father having an autistic or schizophrenic child are not provide in the article. We are not told what a “significantly increased risk” is. Does a doubling or tripling of mutations in sperm mean a 10% increase, a 50% or 100% increase in the incidence of autism, for example? And, again, what is the baseline risk, what level of incidence is it an increase over, .1% or 1% or 10%? The CDC (Center for Disease Control) website reports that the incidence of autism was 1 in 88 births in 2008, about 1.1%, indicating a strong upward trend from the 1 in 150 births in 2000, .6 of 1%. But that doesn’t tell us what the incidence is for younger fathers or older fathers. The answers to those questions really make a difference in how much more at risk you really are, don’t they?

 

And yes, there are many more cases of autism diagnosed today than there were only a decade or so ago. Is that attributable to many more older dads in those more recent years? It’s hard not to think that, and it does seem implied by the data, but the article does not go that far. But the article does give many examples of older men, including many celebrities, having children that appear to be perfectly normal and healthy. But having shared that qualifying perspective doesn’t change the conclusion that older men have more children with these problems, even if we are not told just how many more or what percentage increase that might be.

 

The Time article moves toward conclusion reviewing those other factors that bear on the wisdom of later-in-life fatherhood, including the challenges for older fathers in rearing children. And while there are some other factors that can make older dads better parents, there are others that may limit their effectiveness, most of which have long been understood. It’s a fascinating article—an attention grabber, really—especially if you’re a man. But surely it’s just as important a concern to the wives of older men, regardless of which of them has decided they might like to be a parent (again?) after all? It’s an article worth reading and understanding by everyone.

 

 

Addendum (5.2.2013)

 

An anonymous commenter picked up on my cautionary paragraph addressing the absence of clear data or conclusions in the article about the rate of increase in the incidence of autism for older fathers. He referenced a New York Times article that he said concluded that the risk to older men was still very low. I found the article, and indeed that's just what it concludes:

Experts said that the finding was hardly reason to forgo fatherhood later in life, though it might have some influence on reproductive decisions. The overall risk to a man in his 40s or older is in the range of 2 percent, at most, and there are other contributing biological factors that are entirely unknown. 

---"Father's Age is Linked to Risk of Autism and Schizophrenia," by Benedict Carey, New York Times (8.22.2012

Still, there are some men and women who might pause for more reflection at the prospect of even a 2% probability, especially if the prospective mother was older and brought her own additional risks or vulnerabilities to the process. And then, from a broader perspective, the article adds that the significant increase in older men fathering children has materially contributed to the increase in the incidence of autism cases over the most recent decade or so, accounting for 20-30% of the increase. My cautionary stance remains sound: older prospective parents (and their doctors) should assure that they are well informed about the most recent research in this area and how that translates into risk for them, and be sure it is a level of risk they can be comfortable with.

Rejecting the Wrong Kids: Zakaria on College Admissions

The evolving criteria for college admissions has long been an area rife with controversy. But it is most controversial when it reduces the influence of objective measures of merit in favor of social, financial or prejudicial considerations that either favor or exclude groups of applicants disproportionately to their objective measures of merit. Sometimes there is good social and educational reasoning that motivates it, or at least there are assumptions of good intentions. But this is not always true, and sometimes it is clearly not. Sometimes it reflects social prejudice, financial or other values inconsistent with the notion of merit, either objective academic merit or social merit. As is often the case, Fareed Zakaria makes us think about things that are not so easy to hear, and less easy to remedy.

 

In an article for Time magazine, Mr. Zakaria identifies a few such areas that, by implication, are worthy of our attention. The first mentioned is state universities’ and colleges’ financial preference for out of state students.

State universities--once the highways of advancement for the middle class--have been utterly transformed under the pressure of rising costs and falling government support. A new book, Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality, shows how some state schools have established a "party pathway," admitting more and more rich out-of-state kids who can afford hefty tuition bills but are middling students. These cash cows are given special attention through easy majors, lax grading, social opportunities and luxurious dorms. That's bad for the bright low-income students, who are on what the book's authors, Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton, call the mobility pathway. They are neglected and burdened by college debt and fail in significant numbers. 

---“The Thin Envelope Crisis: America’s universities are rejecting the wrong kids--and undermining the idea of merit,” by Fareed Zakaria, Time (3.15.2013)

But what of all the financial aid provided by most universities and colleges to accepted students with financial need? A point of pride in the provision of equal educational opportunity to a diverse college population, these values have not been abandoned have they? No, but there are apparently many more such students and much less money to offer them. And then there is the issue of admissions limiting quotas for Asians. Mr. Zakaria:

The Country's best colleges and universities do admit lower-income students. But the competition has become so intense and the percentage admitted so small that the whole process seems arbitrary. When you throw in special preferences for various categories—legacies, underrepresented minorities and athletes—it also looks less merit-based than it pretends to be. In an essay in the American Conservative, Ron Unz uses a mountain of data to charge that America's top colleges and universities have over the past two decades maintained a quota—an upper limit—of about 16.5% for Asian Americans, despite their exploding applicant numbers and high achievements.

[…] Two Ivy League admissions officers estimated to me that Asian Americans probably make up more than 20% of their entering classes. Even so, institutions that are highly selective but rely on more objective measures for admission have found that their Asian-American populations have risen much more sharply over the past two decades. Caltech and the University of California, Berkeley, are now about 40% Asian… The U.S. math and science olympiad winners are more than 70% Asian American. In this context, for the U.S.'s top colleges and universities to be at 20% is, at the least, worth some reflection.

Test scores are only one measure of a student's achievement, and other qualities must be taken into account. But it's worth keeping in mind that the arguments for such subjective criteria are precisely those that were made in the 1930s to justify quotas for Jews. In fact, in his book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, scholar Jerome Karabel exhaustively documented how nonobjective admissions criteria such as interviews and extracurriculars were put in place by Ivy League schools in large measure to keep Jewish admissions from rising.

A margin note in Mr. Zakaria’s essay states that a 2009 study reported that Asian Americans on average needed SAT scores 140 points higher than white students to have the same chance of admission to elite private universities. But that isn’t the most troubling merit issue in college admissions, not according to Mr. Zakaria’s data. That distinction, in surprisingly disproportionate numbers and percentages, belongs to college athletes. From Mr. Zakaria:

Then there's the single largest deviation from merit in America's best colleges: their recruited-athletes programs. The problem has gotten dramatically worse in the past 20 years. Colleges now have to drop their standards much lower to build sports teams. These students, in turn, perform terribly in classrooms. A senior admissions officer at an Ivy League school told me, "I have to turn down hundreds of highly qualified applicants, including many truly talented amateur athletes, because we must take so many recruited athletes who are narrowly focused and less accomplished otherwise. They are gladiators, really." William Bowen, a former president of Princeton University, has documented the damage this system does to American higher education—and yet no college president has the courage to change it.

Another margin note informs us that athletes make up 25% to 40% of the student body at Division III colleges, and 20% to 30% at Ivy League universities. And we all know why no college president has the courage to change it. The alumni. They love their alma mater’s athletic teams, and their alma mater, too, when they are successful. And when they are, so many alums are disposed to be their most generous. College athletics are also considered by many an important part of the experience of college life. In traditional, residential colleges, particularly those with successful athletic programs in major sports, that is not likely to change soon.

 

Mr. Zakaria closes by reminding us that the decline in America’s economic mobility is the most troubling trend in recent years—and that our colleges and universities play a leading role in opening the doors of opportunity to new generations of Americans. But if they are not providing access based on merit, at least in large part, then economic mobility in America will continue to decline, and the American dream will continue to be more likely realized elsewhere. But his conclusion sounds to me more like a portentous pronouncement, an elegiac epitaph, already written in different ways by so many others. And while the problems of American higher education are considerable, and the challenges formidable, the intersection of need and innovation has already brought the power of creative and corrective forces to bear on reimagining higher education.

 

So, if it all sounds a little too defeatist, a little too despairing, it is. Allow me to offer another perspective, one elaborated on in my last post, “The Future of Higher Education,” Hyde Park’s Corner (4.4.2013). American higher education is already well into a process of change, some would fairly assess it as a process of “disruptive innovation.” Central to the coming changes are the continuing improvements and innovations in on-line education—and more recently the evolution of massive, open, on-line courses (MOOCs) and works-in-process like continuing education through just-in-time mini-courses.

 

That doesn’t mean the complete demise of traditional, residential colleges, especially the well-heeled elite schools. But it does mean that many if not most will change dramatically or fail, that many will evolve hybrid programs, and that the new mainstream will likely be a very effective and cost-efficient set of on-line alternatives offered in a variety of settings for a variety of purposes. I can’t speak to the future of college athletics, but I find it hard to conceive of it surviving in anything like it’s current role or status. Yet, access will not be denied for any of the reasons that so rightly concern Mr. Zakaria. There are no physical limits or created barriers that would deny merit or broader access a place at this new table.

 

I have often referred to the evolution of this range of on-line higher education possibilities as the affordable education lifeboat for the nation’s lower- and middle-income students and families who can no longer afford the traditional, residential college experience. But it could be much more than that, more and better. Early research indicates that on-line education is very quickly becoming much more effective and efficient than most people understand, and that on-line students perform every bit as well and often better than students in traditional, residential classrooms. And it will only get better and more cost-efficient.

 

Yes, it will take time. And the changes, the failures and dislocations, will be as painful for many as the new alternatives are hope-filled and promising for so many more. Buckle-up, pilgrim.

 

The Future of Higher Education

I've written on this topic before—about the evolving role and potential of on-line education from the perspective of “disruptive innovation.” Disruptive innovation is a research-based business theory about the evolution of new products and business models that replace those that have become staid, unresponsive to need, or failing. It is based on the work and writing of Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen and a Harvard Magazine article he wrote in 2011 explaining how that process is playing a key role in the evolution of new models for higher education. I quoted liberally from his article, Colleges in Crisis: Disruptive change comes to American higher education, written with Michael B. Horn. My conclusion was as follows:

As the authors made clear, we are just in the early stages of this process. But the pace of the process will likely quicken as the increases in cost and tuition at colleges and universities continue unchecked--and as the greater demands of America's public, economy, and government policies continue unmet. But no one yet appears able to see just how it will all unfold, the timing, or exactly what it all will look like when all the change has had its way. Still, if you sense authority or prescience in this article by Christensen and Horn, then expect to see these kinds of changes occur more visibly and at an increasing rate, as we also see an increasingly troubled and failing traditional higher education model. 

---See my “Disruptive Innovation: Re-Shaping American Higher Education?” Hyde Park’s Corner (7.2.2011)

In less than two years, we can see that the pace of the process has quickened, that serious players are now engaging that process, and that progress is being made. And interestingly, it is not the business or for-profit sector that is leading in innovation (although they are playing their role). It is elite American Universities that have taken up the gauntlet, accepting the challenge to lead and protect their higher education franchise as it moves into a new era of dramatic change. It includes the Harvard-MIT joint venture, EdX, Coursera and Udacity, among others. The new thing in on-line higher education are “MOOCs”, the mass, open, on-line courses. And they are free, at least in this early experimental phase. Then, as Professor Christensen suggests, the next new thing may be what he calls “just-in-time mini-courses.”

 

But first, let’s listen as Drew Faust, President of Harvard University, shares some of her thoughts on progress made, likely applications, and how it will change even the elite, traditional residential colleges like Harvard. Ms. Faust:

In January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, I participated in a panel discussion on MOOCs—massive open online courses—and the future of education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology President L. Rafael Reif and I had the opportunity to share our thoughts on edX, the nonprofit organization created by Harvard and MIT to make high-quality [free] educational content and courses available online. EdX will enhance our understanding of learning and teaching on our campuses at the same time it brings knowledge to individuals across the globe. 

Nearly 200,000 people, half of them from outside of the United States, enrolled in the initial edX courses taught by Harvard faculty this fall—Introduction to Computer Science I and Health in Numbers: Quantitative Methods in Clinical and Public Health Research. I expect to see even larger enrollments in the next slate of Harvard offerings, which includes an introduction to moral and political philosophy, an examination of global environmental change, and an exploration of the law of copyright. In The Ancient Greek Hero, the platform’s first humanities course, students will encounter the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey—and related art, film, and music—throughout time and across space, considering enduring characters and questions in an entirely new context. These courses are not lectures delivered through the web, but active learning experiences where students are asked to demonstrate understanding and connect with others to form participant communities. 

Increasing access and making knowledge from diverse fields and disciplines much more broadly available are important aims, but there are other motivations for launching edX. We intend to leverage observations made in the digital space to understand what we might do better in our own classrooms and classrooms around the world—an aspiration that is already being realized...Higher education will continue to be advanced by digital innovations. The edX partnership is an opportunity for Harvard and MIT, together with a host of partner colleges and universities, to encourage new approaches, to develop new methods, and to drive assessment—all pursued in a spirit of boundless curiosity and an abiding openness to the wider world. 

MOOCs and their potential captured considerable attention at Davos as business and political leaders speculated about the future of residential education, a conversation that will continue in the months and years ahead. I believe that online education offers us possibilities we have just begun to imagine for sharing knowledge more widely and teaching more effectively. But the power of residential education and interaction will not be undermined. Bringing thinkers and doers together is uniquely generative. Every day the magic that happens inside a Farkas or Paine Hall rehearsal room; across an i-lab whiteboard or a House dining room table; in a Law School classroom or a stem cell laboratory or dozens of other settings across our campus reminds us of the uplifting and transformative power of the company we are so lucky to keep. 

---“The Future Of Education” by Drew Faust, Harvard Magazine (March-April 2013)

It is clear, then, that President Faust sees a strong future for elite residential colleges and universities, places like Harvard and its peers, places with large endowments and considerable resources. She sees Harvard’s joint venture with MIT and the other peer initiatives evolving the residential college experience into a better, more effective educational experience, and likely one that is operated on a more cost-effective basis. But their future and fate may dictate a very different model for the elite universities as well. Regardless, for the great majority of residential colleges with resources that do not run nearly so deep, financial struggles will likely follow soon enough; and unable to muster innovative ideas or new resources, they are unlikely to survive this change process without moving to an on-line or hybrid model, too.

But President Faust does not speak of the real crisis in higher education: evidence mounts that without scholarship grants, fewer and fewer poor and middle-class students will be able to afford a residential college education. Nonresidential, on-line degree and training programs will likely provide the educational life boat these students and their families need. And it appears from the pace of progress, it will likely provide a competent, cost-effective education, one that meets the needs of students and families, businesses and government, the individual and collective calls to creativity, innovation, and productivity.

How good have on-line courses already become? I read of an experiment at an elite university where one-half the students were assigned to a typical, residential classroom; the other students took the class on-line. I’m sure you’ve already guessed the result: the students taking the on-line version of the course outperformed those in the classroom. Unsurprisingly, many colleges have for some time offered courses that may be taken on-line for credit. And more and more, on-line degree programs are respected by employers as providing an effective education.

So what are Mssrs. Christensen and Horn now thinking about the progress of “disruptive innovation” in U.S. Higher education? In two related pieces in the February 2013 issue of Wired magazine, they offer some of their thoughts. The first article is a longer interview with Professor Christensen about transforming capitalism, from which I’ve extracted his comments on higher education. From that interview:

Howe: If you had to list some industries right now that are either in a state of disruptive crisis or will be soon, what would they be? 

Christensen: Journalism, certainly, and publishing broadly. Anything supported by advertising. That all of this is being disrupted is now beyond question. And then I think higher education is just on the edge of the crevasse. Generally, universities are doing very well financially, so they don’t feel from the data that their world is going to collapse. But I think even five years from now these enterprises are going to be in real trouble. 

Howe: Why is higher education vulnerable? 

Christensen: The availability of online learning. It will take root in its simplest applications, then just get better and better. You know, Harvard Business School doesn’t teach accounting anymore, because there’s a guy out of BYU whose online accounting course is so good. He is extraordinary, and our accounting faculty, on average, is average. 

Howe: What happens to all our institutions of advanced learning? 

Christensen: Some will survive. Most will evolve hybrid models, in which universities license some courses from an online provider like Coursera but then provide more-specialized courses in person. Hybrids are actually a principle regardless of industry. If you want to use a new technology in a mainstream existing market, it has to be a hybrid. It’s like the electric car. If you want to have a viable electric car, you have to ask if there is a market where the customers want a car that won’t go far or fast. The answer is, parents of teenagers would love to put their teens in a car that won’t go far or fast. Little by little, the technology will emerge to take it on longer trips. But if you want to have this new technology employed on the California freeways right now, it has to be a hybrid like a Prius, where you take the best of the old with the best of the new. 

---“Clayton Christensen wants to transform capitalism,” an interview with Clayton Christensen, Wired.com (2.12.13)

 Now, more about MOOCs and just-in-time mini-courses. We’ve read President Faust share some truly exciting anecdotes about the early successes of the EdX MOOCs. From all I read and hear from friends who’ve taken one, the same is being experienced in Coursera’s and Udacity’s and others’. From Mssrs. Christensen and Horn:

Everyone’s going MOOC-crazy these days. From frequent media coverage of online courses and platforms like Coursera, edX, Udacity, and Udemy to discussions about the complexities and business models of online education, the excitement around MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) has finally “bubbled” over. 

The question is not just whether MOOCs are going to disrupt traditional education, but how. Is it just about lower costs and access? Is it really going to be a Napster-like moment with entrenched “Teamsters in tweed” worried about the erosion of their research, publishing, and teaching? 

This is where we can leave the realm of hype and commentary to draw on our own years of research into disruption theory. Because the curious thing about the MOOC wave of disruption is that the market leaders — not just upstarts from the edges — are the ones pioneering it. And that rarely happens. 

But First: Are MOOCs Really ‘Disruptive’? 

Yes, the word “disrupt” is overused. But it has a specific meaning when we’re talking about it. And MOOCs do bear the early hallmarks of a disruptive innovation: 

Serves non-consumers. MOOCs are limited in the services they provide compared to traditional colleges, yet at the same time they are free and more accessible — which allows them to serve those who couldn’t otherwise access traditional higher education. Similarly, Toyota’s early cars didn’t match the reliability of Detroit’s automobiles. But they were more affordable and convenient, so the company first served people (“non-consumers”) for whom the alternative was, quite literally, nothing. 

Marches upmarket. Instead of serving the same customers at the outset or competing head-on with established products, disruptive innovations improve over time to march upmarket. Eventually the quality becomes just good enough for the established customers to flock to it. It’s worth noting that the upmarket march is enabled by some key technology — such as bandwidth, video quality, online sharing tools, etc. — which is why MOOCs may now be having their moment, even though they’ve been around for years. 

Redefines quality. Eventually, the disruptive innovation changes the very definition of quality in a marketplace. In the current university system, for example, most faculty are rewarded for the quality of their research — not for the quality of their teaching. But the medium and scale changes things; in the future, courses might be offered based on employer demand, not faculty research interests. MOOCs are already evolving in some ways away from traditional educational constraints: Udacity’s courses, for example, have shifted from a time-controlled to a more competency-based learning model that takes advantage of the online medium. 

Does Who Is Doing the Disrupting Matter? 

Given the above criteria, it’s unusual, and remarkably difficult, for established market leaders to pioneer — or even catch up — with disruptions. 

Yet interestingly, the big, reputable universities are the ones leading the MOOC wave. This includes MIT and Harvard (through edX) as well as Stanford, whose groundbreaking AI course morphed into Udacity (and whose professors independently founded Coursera). 

It’s not that established players can’t see the disruptions coming; they almost always do. There are just several other forces at play that cause market leaders to ignore them. For example, disruptive innovations don’t look that attractive, profitable, or prestigious early on. Or the company’s best customers signal that they don’t care for them (at least initially). But universities are likely investing in MOOCs now because disruption theory is finally widely enough understood that astute leaders know how to identify and chase opportunities early. 

When established players want to (successfully) catch a disruptive wave, however, they have to set up an autonomous business model with different resources, processes, and priorities. Otherwise, the very capabilities that serve them well in their traditional business can represent liabilities in the one they’re disrupting. This is how IBM was able to go from the mainframe to personal computing business in the ’80s and ’90s, and it’s why MOOCs have done well in spinning themselves off into separate entities. 

Although the big three MOOCs — Coursera, edX, and Udacity — all leverage capabilities from their “parent” universities, they still have to be careful about which ones to adopt and which ones to avoid. Ideally, they should be able to pull what they want instead of having their university parents push resources (like administrative processes) to them. 

The only place the direction of this relationship doesn’t matter, according to our research, is brand. Being associated with the likes of Harvard, MIT, and Stanford doesn’t hurt, especially when it comes to signaling quality (i.e., “endorser” brands), as long as the disruptor can signal some separation for a job well done (i.e., “purpose” brands) in the new disruptive realm — hence the power of the “X” in edX. Leveraging its brand helped IBM move through multiple disruptive waves. 

So What Comes Next for the MOOCs? 

The need for customization will drive us toward just-in-time mini-courses. 

MOOCs can be much more than marketing and edutainment. We believe they are likely to evolve into a “scale business”: one that relies on the technology and data backbone of the medium to optimize and individualize learning opportunities for millions of students. 

This is very different than simply putting a video of a professor lecturing online. 

The initial MOOCs came from a “process business model” where companies bring inputs together at one end and transform them into a higher-value output for customers at the other end — as with the retail and manufacturing industries. 

But over time, an approach where users exchange information from each other similar to Facebook or telecommunications (a “facilitated network model”) will come to dominate online learning. This evolution is especially likely to happen if the traditional degree becomes irrelevant and, as many predict, learning becomes a continuous, on-the-job learning process. Then the need for customization will drive us toward just-in-time mini-courses. 

In this case, facilitated networks or adaptive learning platforms — like Khan Academy and Knewton — may actually be better positioned than MOOCs (in their current forms) to improve learning and serve massive numbers of students with tailored offerings. Such a transformation is not unlike what happened in the car industry: The Ford Model T dominated the American car market … until General Motors brought forth choice and variety. 

---“Beyond the Buzz, Where Are MOOCs Really Going?” By Michael Horn and Clayton Christensen, Wired.com (2.20.13)

Christensen appears to me right when he speaks of most traditional, residential colleges failing to perceive the strength and immediacy of the threat, how quickly the waves of their reshaping or demise are rising and lapping up against their doorsteps. And for the simple reasons cited by Christensen, most will not respond in a timely, effective way. Yet, it is impressive—isn’t it?—how some of the best of America’s higher education institutions have understood, and timely and effectively responded. There is still quite a way to go, yes, but it appears from our recent experience, and the projections of Christensen and Horn, that the distance will continue to be consumed at a faster and more efficient pace with each unit of time passed. I’m excited to consider what I may be writing about this process two years from now, even if it will likely include the continuing failings and increasing failures of more of our traditional residential colleges and universities.