To be sure, there is a large kernel of truth in the speaker's comment. One could actually make the claim that the college lecture hasn't changed overly much in thousands of years; when students (mostly boys and men) met to study with Socrates or Plato, or attended Al-Azhar or Jixia Academy, the Sage on the Stage model was pretty much what they'd experience. One of the reasons for this is simply that the model has served us well as a species. Sitting and listening to a person who talks about what they know, talking about it with each other, and then being asked to recite it back is an effective way to transmit knowledge. His comment about demographics is also pretty spot on. Higher education didn't become unremarkable for American women, men of color until the 1960's and 1970's. For centuries, in most civilizations around the world formal education was those with access to power (mostly men) passing knowledge about or generated by (mostly) dead men onto the next generation.

There is a major shift, though, worth attending to - the role of student interest. For most of western and eastern formal education, the focus was on a relatively static curriculum. In European-style education (including American and Canadian), it was generally known as a "classical" curriculum - Latin, Greek, some maths, and some sciences. Chinese scholars attended to the "four arts" - calligraphy, game play, musicality, and painting. In effect, the experience of formal education was about getting smarter for the sake of getting smarter. What you did after you received your education was mostly irrelevant. College students in 1800 didn't study Latin to prepare a job translating Roman texts. They studied Latin because educated men could read Latin. It was a feedback loop that didn't allow for a lot of practical knowledge or self-interest.

A college student in 1900, though? He was studying Latin because he was planning on becoming a lawyer. Or she gasp was going to be a Latin teacher. By 1900, the concept of a "major" was beginning to take shape. The colonial universities (Harvard, Yale, etc. etc.) were establishing colleges with a focus driven by student interest and the demands of emerging professions. It was increasingly less about an "education" and more about preparation for life after college. In addition, the lecture was increasingly limited to a college student's first or second year. By their third or fourth year, they were in smaller seminars with a narrower band of curriculum, more often than not focused on topics related to career options after graduation. Dissent and discussion was increasingly welcome. The professor's job was becoming less about passing along knowledge and more about helping the student discover and uncover it.

Homework has undergone an evolution and that's mostly due to the availability of affordable paper and writing implements. For most of human history, a student demonstrated their knowledge by speaking it. Known as "recitations", a student (by which we generally a boy or young man from the demographic group with access to power) would learn new information via lecture or conversation and repeat it back on demand. These recitations were often idiosyncratic based on tutor, professor, country and college preferences. In contrast, a student in 1998 was likely doing homework related to the idea of what they wanted to do when they "grew up." Basically, if someone assigned you homework circa 1800, modern-day you would view it as memorization without context. 1800 you, though, would think it of it akin to weigh-lifting or training for a marathon.

Keep in mind, in 1810, the average age at Harvard was 15 1/2. By 1910 or so, it was closer to 19. This shift - though seemingly small - marked a transformation in the goal of higher education. College in 1800 was about becoming a gentlemen. In 1900, it was about becoming an adult. In 1998, it was figuring out who you wanted to be as an adult.

This age shift also impacted schedules. Young men attending Harvard in the 1700's followed pretty much the same schedule seven days a week - lecture, recitations, prayer, meals, etc. By 1900, there was more space for recreation, clubs, and sports. By 1998, a student's schedule was one of his or her (or their) making. A student would even seek out advice on which courses to take and had a say in the schedule. A student in 1800 would have only a few choices. A student in 1700 had virtually no choice.

One final note on demographic changes. Prior to 1975, a school district or college could legally turn away any student due to actual or perceived disability. Before Brown vs. Board in 1954, they could turn away Black, Native or Indigenous, Hispanic, or Asian students due to their race. The diversity of the student body feels like a minor detail but it's difficult to stress how dramatic the inclusion of people with disabilities, women, men of color in higher education has been. For centuries, higher education was basically preparation for those destined to hold power. Bit by bit, course by course, those denied access to that power found cracks and access. That shift, from an exclusive space for the sons of men with means, to a shared space for anyone with an interest in advanced knowledge is one of the most dramatic shifts in the human experience.