Showmanship - learners’ preference for people putting on a show

In my last post I mentioned a few trends I’m seeing in the education space.

Let’s take a closer look at what I call Showmanship - learners' preference for people putting on a show.?

For me, you’re a show-man (or woman) if you’re very extroverted, very transparent with your life / activities (way more than an average person), highly opinionated, using visual media (most often video) and you are carefully crafting your messages in order to evoke in your audience a specific emotion.

I start from an empirical observation: we regularly organize masterclasses for our students at EA, inviting top entrepreneurs and corporate business leaders to share their experience and [business] battle lessons. As managers of the initiative, we choose our guests taking into account their business accomplishments and we are very happy when they generously give their time to our students.

However, at the receiving end, the initial reaction of the students (before actually meeting our speakers) is sometimes less than 100% enthusiastic.

Exploring the gap between our and their enthusiasm, one key element comes up again and again: “Who is this guy / girl?” ??

And that’s where it becomes clear that we often operate with very distinct reference frameworks. For us, the relevant references are the historical business accomplishments; for our students, the relevant reference is a quick check to see their media presence (Instagram / Tik Tok / YouTube). If they can’t find our guests easily or at all, or if they find their presence to be limited / not spectacular, then they quickly jump to a “not impressed / why should I bother” starting point. And then we have our work cut out for us to “sell” the idea that the interaction might be worthwhile.?

So, for this generation of learners (in their early 20s) it’s not enough that you have built companies, created hundreds of jobs, generated millions (tens, hundreds) in sales to qualify one as a relevant teacher / model. If you don’t have a smooth presence on Insta / TikTok / YouTube, you “don’t matter”. I’m exaggerating a bit, but not much. Having a strong media game is conflated with having a strong business acumen / being worthy to learn from.

Which raises a range of questions, among which:

• Are classical education institutions (universities / high-schools) ready / able to gather, host and manage show-men and show-women? I think not, or very limitedly so. The only institutions able to do so effectively at scale traditionally were TV stations and cinema studios. But they require a totally different managerial setup (compared with the way classical educational institutions work) and, most importantly, a very different social and economic pecking order. In a TV / cinema context, you have the stars - that get lots of attention / status / money - and tens/hundreds of others (videographers, sound experts, wardrobe, make-up etc) supporting them - getting comparably little attention / status / money. Very different environment when compared to a traditional academic (school / university) setup, that is much more egalitarian in nature.

• Is there any point in them doing so (gathering, hosting and managing show-men and show-women)? If yes, then that implies the choice of the change in context / culture mentioned above + the challenge of operations scale needed to accommodate the costs of said [successful and expensive] show-men and women. If not, that implies either accepting the [growing?] gap between learner’s expectations and the academic institution’s delivery or trying to fight / reframe the “star required” phenomenon (this is where we are dabbling for the moment). Either way, it’s a tension that needs to be proactively addressed, it doesn’t go away by itself.

• Are classical education institutions still needed or the showmen and women can do very well on their own without them? Yes ?? The showmen and women can do very well on their own - there are plenty of people selling various courses without having a traditional academic institution to back them. But, classical education institutions are still needed (though they need to better understand why). The traditional functions of a university are teaching / learning and research. But actually there are several others; some better understood (ex: credentialing to third parties by way of the graduation diploma), some dismissed on occasion (ex: proper talent selection), some not often obvious (ex: providing relevant context for socioeconomic homogamy - the tendency for individuals to marry or form partnerships with others who share a similar socio-economic background). Worth listening to a great podcast episode from A16Z with Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz delving deep into the 12 functions of the modern university.

So, what’s the answer to this conundrum?

I don’t know for sure. ??

But I’m considering that perhaps the answer to this challenge will be a technological solution with psycho-emotional implications: AI personalized learning. One could argue that it might be a better option than a showman / star that you deeply resonate with. An always-on, always-giving-you-what-you-need, 100% customized-to-your-whims tutor that deeply resonates with you ??, with the ability to create whatever form of input you might need in a particular moment: text, sound, image, video and everything it can build on the spot with these elements. Our very own, built-to-our-preference show-men or women that can teach us anything we desire / need whenever is convenient for us.

What would tip the balance of preference for you between:

A) A classical, proven academic model;?

B) The star power of show-men/women teachers / models;?

C) A built-to-your-preference AI universal tutor?