"The scary thing is that fifteen years from now maybe half the universities will be in bankruptcy, including the state schools. But in the end I'm excited to see that happen."
http://www.wiredacademic.com/2013/03/watch-in-15-years-from-now-half-of-us-universities-may-be-in-bankruptcy-clay-christensen/ (March 20, 2013). The statement starts at 6:40 of the video.
The following statement was made to a British interviewer for the Economist and clearly references more than just American universities.
Q. What does this mean for universities?
A. For online universities, like Liverpool and the University of Phoenix, if prices drop by 60% they still make money. But for the vast majority of traditional universities, if the prices fall by 10% they are bankrupt; they have no wriggle room. So I'd be very surprised if in ten years we don't see hundreds of universities in bankruptcy
Q. Is this something you lament?
A. It makes me sad because these institutions have a lot of meaning for a lot of people. But on the other side, we should celebrate. People will be so much better served.
http://www.economist.com/whichmba/clayton-christensen-still-disruptive (July 13, 2013)
Do you see how squishy this becomes? Those two statements were made less than four months apart, the topic is the same. The statements are similar but are not the same. In the first statement, to an American interviewer, there is only a little wiggle room: "maybe half," but that number "will be in bankruptcy" within 15 years. To the Economist it's "hundreds" after 10 years and his level of certainty is "I'd be very surprised." What is the basis for EITHER? What is the evidence? He offers no support in the data, in his research for either and since the statements are similar but not identical, I conclude that there is no basis for either, that he is just pulling numbers, years, degrees of certainty, out of his ass. He offers no explanation and, Jill Lepore's point, he is permitted to make these similar but not identical statements completely unchallenged by his fawning interviewers. Watch the video and see the celebrity deference and adulation that is uncritical. It is appalling journalism.
For the purposes of this post we are going to use 2,221 as the number of American universities. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_005.asp. I do not know how many of the equivalent Britain has so I'm not even going there. We are going to use 40% to represent Christensen's "maybe half" prediction. Forty percent of 2,221 is 888. That is reasonably consistent with his 10-year prediction of "hundreds" of American and British universities that will go bankrupt. We're going to use 15 years and 40% of American universities only.
"Disruptive innovation" is not strategic, not in business, not in health care, not in education. Disruption is tactical, a means to and end. It is growth that is the strategy in business. Disruption alone is chaos. Innovation alone is...innovation. The strategy is to grow your business. You can disrupt your business, you can innovate a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, neither alone nor in combination does disruption and innovation mean that your business will grow. And disruption alone is inefficiency at least. Mao Zedong disrupted the hell out of China 1966-1976, no good came of that. Disruption+innovation does not necessarily produce growth of the existing business.
So Christensen put down your crack pipe! you..Pardonne moi, pardonne MOI. Generous, we must be generous. Mean, we must NOT be mean...Professor Christensen, you have yourself a bet. In 2028, if there are 888 American universities in bankruptcy or that have been in bankruptcy, I will blow...I will
blow Moroni's horn! I will convert to Mormonism. If there are not, you will convert to Islam.*
*In the event of either of our demise, the loser agrees to be disinterred and reburied in Salt Lake City or Mecca (Or to have his ashes scattered there.)
