<p>I recall decades ago when the the first version of on-line college courses for credit came along - namely televised courses from local colleges on public access channels. That was supposed to be a game-changer too.</p>
<p>I still a see a few of those being broadcast, but it turned out to be a small niche rather than something that turned the college world upside down. Same thing might well happen with internet-based courses - a useful device for a limited offering of supplemental courses but not the educational New World Order that some envision.</p>
<p>Xinio654: top 50 based on whose standards? US News Report? How laughable! USNWR is not a good judge for how economically sustainable a school is. And are you saying just top 50 nat schools? So swarthmore is going under? Also whats the difference between GWU and BU (50 and 53, respectively) based on sustainability? </p>
<p>I think online education will only affect the lower-tiered schools, and only in certain majors. Let’s face it, people aren’t driving their kids to get into Harvard because Harvard offers better classes, in person or online. They want their kids at Harvard in large measure for the prestige. For the chance that junior will be the roommate of the next Mark Zuckeberg, Bill Gates, a future president, or Wall Street biggie. I’d say for a HUGE percentage of people, elite education is less about education and more about having junior a part of the elite.</p>
<p>Depending on what you consider first rate, very few people (certainly not me) would think this is going to happen anytime soon of anything other than MBA (whose programs’ admissions depend primarily on non-education criteria). However, that doesn’t at all mean that online education won’t have it’s place for the masses. That guy that goes to Eastern Michigan to get a degree in Psychology or Business could easily do just as well taking his classes online rather than in a classroom. </p>
<p>Either way, I don’t think online education of 2030 is going to look anything like college education of 2012. There’s going to be a lot of change in the next 15-20 years and I think there’s going to be a lot of innovation in this space.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the number of applications, at least to the top universities, continues to break new records every year and acceptance rates continue to go down. </p>
<p>I don’t think top 10 universities (and maybe most top 10-25) schools seriously risk an abrupt drop in demand because, to quote Mr. Lesick , they are able to “show the value proposition”. I don’t see a crisis either in the major state universities, which are relatively inexpensive for state residents and, in most cases, their natural first choice given the balance of low cost, high (academic) quality, (great) social life and (moderate to low) selectivity. Small, expensive private LACs on the other hand might be the victims of the bubble burst.</p>
<p>Small, expensive high quality LACs will continue to lure a disproportionate number of sons and daughters of the 1%, as well as sons and daughters of the educational elite. </p>
<p>It is the small, sort of expensive LACs that deliver a poor product, are inadequately financed or are poorly managed that will likely bite the dust.</p>
<p>Well the high school model has made some inroads, only one of several on line high schools.</p>
<p>State and Private Schools</p>
<p>Arizona State University
Bowling Green State University
Duke University
Georgia Tech
New York University
Notre Dame
Purdue University
Rice University
Rutgers University
Stanford University
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Oklahoma
University of Ohio
University of Oregon
University of Washington</p>
<p>Ivy League Schools</p>
<p>Dartmouth
Yale</p>
<p>Art Schools</p>
<p>Cal Arts
Bradley Academy for the Visual Arts
Ft. Lauderdale Institute of Art and Photography
Pennsylvania School of Art and Design
Savannah College of Art and Design
The School of Visual Arts (NYC)</p>
<p>I think the bubble will burst and when in does many small privates will not survive. There is a disconnect between the cost of attending many Universities and their value. When a small private university’s COA is about the same as Harvard’s there is a problem. When small privates have to rely on students who have to borrow money to attend their institutions the end is not far away. Harvard could probably charge $80k/yr and still fill it’s classes, the same could be said for many of the top tier universities. Harvard and the top tiers will be able to get the best and the brightest because those who can afford it will pay for the prestige and they can afford to offer scholarships and need based aid to those who can’t. </p>
<p>I do believe online education will play a role in the future. It will likely be an option for those who cannot afford to attend a university but desire a university education. I really think we will see a hybrid system. Students will either take entire courses online (my D did this in high school her sophmore year with Latin) or on campus take partial courses online with an in-class with the professors say once a week. This would allow the professors to teach more classes and be more productive, thus requiring fewer professors. My D experienced this to a degree as well. Her HS calculus teacher would pair up with another calculus teacher and prepare online lectures for the more basic concepts in each section they would be teaching. This cut their preparation time in half and freed up time in their class to spend on the more challenging concepts. Freshman year might be taken at home and count as part of your transcript to be accepted into the physical college. Today’s four year education might require only two on campus. Potentially professors might hale from anywhere in the world and teach the lecture portion while assistants might teach the in class sessions. It wouldn’t even surprise me if before too long language wouldn’t be a barrier as on line translators could accurately translate from and to any language. I have heard of professors going on research junkets and doing an online class from the middle of remote areas via sattelite.</p>
<p>Technology opens up a whole world of possiblities of how, when and where people are educated and who educates them. Cost may be the initial motivator to the changes but ultimately I think people will gravitate to a combination of learning types because it will provide the best education.</p>
<p>I think state universities will be pressured by budget cuts to move their offerings online and taxpayer funded campuses will be greatly downsized or disappear. After all, why should state residents be asked to foot the bill for the luxury of campus life on top of pure academic objectives? I’m grateful that my children were able to have a traditional college experience but recognize that a big part of it (the elements that resemble sleep-away camp) is non-essential to their academic development, or at least will be with future technology. I am actually relieved that my potential grandchildren will have reputable low cost options for higher education. Of course, there will always be a few willing and able to pay for a residential experience, but nobody is going to equate that with greater academic mastery or better critical thinking skills.</p>
<p>I think that id dead wrong. Few people will equate spending 4 years in the basement on a computer with a college experience which includes so many other things. It will be a poorman’s choice only.</p>
<p>What about your grandchildren’s personal development? </p>
<p>And already we have a lot of non-residential options for people looking for a degree. More and more students are non-traditional. I think it’s over a third non-traditional now. But it doesn’t mean that all forms of non-traditional learning are the same. </p>
<p>I have no idea what technology will come up in the future. But I think using the current model, we have serious limitations. Some suggested using video chat as a replacement for discussions. Have you guys ever used tinychat? It is a video chatroom that allows for multiple people, and it gets pretty chaotic when there’s a dozen. Well, imagine that with 25 people. </p>
<p>Currently, video chat is not a replacement for real life talking, and I am not quite sure how it could be. Seriously, given the choice, would you rather talk to a friend over Skype or in person?</p>
<p>And I think it’s also foolish to think that being online will make things suddenly cheaper. I had to pay the same amount for my online classes as my offline ones, even though all my tests were automatically graded and I got no individualized attention. Colleges will charge as much as they want to charge.</p>
<p>I am really doubting that MOST people in favor of online classes have ever taken one.</p>
<p>Among the colleges with the weaker finances, I’m guessing the more vulnerable ones will be ones with many tenured professors in fields that are shrinking. In comparison, the colleges with more adjuncts would actually have more flexibility to add and delete majors and respond to market changes.</p>
<p>Tenure doesn’t protect you if your program is eliminated. If you’re a French professor and the university decides to drop French, you’re going to be unemployed.</p>
<p>Are you kidding? There are a myriad of ways to develop personally other than living in an artificial environment with same aged peers from overall similar backgrounds. How about living in another country, working an unusual job or doing missionary work while fufilling course requirements?</p>
<p>You are young so maybe you don’t have a sense of how far we’ve come since 1990 (the year my first child was born). Few imagined then that they would be engaging in worthwhile dissussions with strangers from around the world in forums such as these. People dismissed the then available video conferencing technology as awkward and intrusive…something noone would ever want. Now people with far away loved ones like myself can’t imagine life without Skype. Many family and friends have disdained emerging technologies since then–including cell phones, digital cameras and even email–which now they forget they ever looked down on. Attitudes adapt more quickly than you think…my grandchildren will have plenty of opportunities to engage with a greater diversity of people than today’s college kids could ever hope for.</p>
<p>Actually, there is some evidence that social engagement in college life enhances educational attainment and that the residential experience increases social engagement. [Pascarella and Terenzini, 89-90 - PM me for the complete citation]</p>
<p>My D tells me that the most valuable thing she got out of her elite education was developing relationships with her fellow students there.</p>
<p>The lower tier LACs might have a shot at survival if they can repackage and market themselves as offering something unique for the academically-average children of the rich. I imagine that some rich people think there is more value in having their kids spend 4 years with other rich kids, regardless of intellectual ability, rather than poor kids, since they at least may make some helpful employment connections and enjoy some other peoples’ nifty summer homes.</p>
<p>Every regular college has lots of opportunity for getting leadership experience and other opportunities form ECs and other organizations related to the school. From club sports to student government to working with outside groups.</p>