<p>I know if my child did not move away and become a pretend grown up(which I equate 4 years of being away at school) I think I would have jumped off a bridge by now. The experiences/life skills learned could NEVER be replicated living at home.
Some kids are go getters from birth, others need nudging some out right need the push out of the nest. </p>
<p>Some things can not be taught in the classroom, but on the “streets”. What better place than away at school.</p>
<p>Talking about “nifty” summer homes. A friend brought her room mate to spend few weeks with her to her Staten Island apartment building back in the 80’s. </p>
<p>Her friends family reciprocated with a summer in the Swiss Alps.</p>
<p>^I wish there was an ability to ‘like’ a post. I think both kids learned something.</p>
<p>I personally believe online education makes more sense to supplement and not replace classroom education - particularly for subjects that are more specialized. For example, many schools and colleges are moving towards online education for the less common languages. </p>
<p>Students learn a great deal from fellow students. I would hate to lose that. </p>
<p>After a certain point, a student learns how to learn. At that point, they can learn more information in a self-directed process than in a typical classroom. However, few undergrads are at that point.</p>
<p>I prefer a mixed system that some colleges are using. They have their best professors record lectures that the students view on their own schedule. Then the entire classroom time is dedicated to discussion of the material and back and forth questions. In many ways, it is preferable because it makes best use of the best lecturers (even if they pass away). Multiple lecturers could be more easily incorporated into one course. The system is designed to INCREASE the amount of time that is interactive among students vs. many online courses are designed to decrease it. Because it is more interactive, it is easier to know if the student is falling behind - before a test. It also is easy to check whether the student logged in to watch the lecture (although they could walk away or be multi-slacking at the same time - I imagine the system could still use Iclickers to show the students are paying attention at various points).</p>
<p>I did not read the entire thread but one question in my mind is how will online courses measure students progress in an integral manner? They will have to adminster exams via supervised facilities like SAT today. That costs the colleges money. How about hands on labs?
Some practical considerations here…</p>
<p>There will be a need for physical facilities for test-taking and lab work but I see it being less of an issue for discussion groups because a lot of peer and mentor interaction can be done online. Just as public lower schools will become learning centers where each child works at their own pace, while receiving support, participating in group activities and having social interaction, public resources can establish community centers that do the same for older learners. It will be a lot more economical than the current model, and a lot less elitist. I suspect it is this latter characteristic that some fear–if future online degrees are a reputable alternative, will traditional degrees lose their relative value? I believe the answer is yes. I don’t think employers will care whether you lived on campus if your qualifications show you to be skilled and knowledgable. Some families may still pay a premium for the residential experience but there are many ways for young adults to acquire leafership and social skills without living on campus.</p>
<p>I think that if you establish that Labs and the connected (in many cases) renowned research centers (and professors) are an integral part of learning for a particular major like technology and science then for those students online degrees will not work. Connected to this then is the loss of oppurtunity for those students who would like to take pursue a major in economics and a minor in say physics… Economics may be (prima facie) a suitable online degree option but not physics then that student is at a loss a significant loss in my opinion by pursuing an online degree only…</p>
<p>Would there really be all that much cost savings in enrolling in an online university versus commuting to a local campus? The online college would still need to provide salaries and facilities for its profs and graders and have an admissions staff (unless it was open to anyone). Enrolled students would need to find and participate in their own gyms and health care and ECs, which could cost money in addition to tuition.</p>
<p>Having taken one of these courses (Stanford/Coursera, Natural Language Processing), I don’t think that will replace traditional classrooms very soon. If anything, the 90% failure rate is a drawback.</p>
<p>I think most anything (even old-fashioned books) would work for well-motivated students. It doesn’t have to be online (anyone remember correspondence courses). However, most students apparently need the face-to-face interaction/discussion/motivation/feedback. I think technology is not too far from that point, but you will still need a lot of people to manage the course, and some physical location for tests. You might save on physical facilities, but I suspect not too much on people.</p>
<p>Back on topic a little bit…</p>
<p>So, when Loan-a-Geddon hits in whatever form–and it will probably manifest itself over a period of years with students AND parents defaulting in droves, and maybe being bailed out from ‘loan until death’ by the government–then demand for the higher priced / less desirable colleges will wane first? Or will a different scenario take place, like government regulation on what colleges can charge?</p>
<p>Even though I think the whole college pricing structure has gotten totally out of whack, I definitely don’t want any government intervention in there. Let supply & demand take care of it, even if it takes 10 years or more to play out.</p>
<p>Not sure how government can control college prices across states. Not constitutional.</p>
<p>As far as predicting anything regarding bricks and mortar vs. online colleges and universities, my 1965 Weekly Reader predicted that sometime around now we would be driving flying cars, using jet packs, and using tiny, personal computers. While one of those predictions came true, it did so in ways we couldn’t have imagined at the time. The future of college education will unfold in a similar way.</p>
<p>@barrons: I see the possibility of government mandated tuition freeze. Since when did the constitution ever stop the federal government from being overreaching? “Freeze all tuitions for 4 years! Its for the good of the economy, which is for the good of our nation as a whole! thus it is constitutional! Also, for anyone making over $150k, we will be taxing you at 100%! Its for the good of the economy and the people as a whole!”</p>
<p>haha, soon enough!</p>
<p>When the Supreme Court slaps them down. Watch healthcare plan go down in flames due to mandates to buy insurance.</p>
<p>When it becomes more apparent that a BA degree is not a guarantee of a job (albeit more of a chance than a HS diploma), that’s when some colleges will start to suffer. I do, however, see trade schools and community colleges not missing a beat.</p>
<p>barrons: I absolutely don’t support it, but just wait till be have a liberal supreme court, liberal congress and liberal president. It happens sometimes. When one party has too much control, the constitution goes out the window.</p>
<p>I think the problem with a lot of colleges is that they are not delivering a good product for a fair price. Not everyone has to go to a top school. But who would want to pay almost same amount for Harvard as for a no-name school? And the problem is, these schools really are’t that much better than regular state flagships, especially comparing prices between the two. But I don’t see what an English major or a psychology major from these schools is supposed to contribute to the workforce. Yes, the Liberal Arts can be great, but only if they are rigorous, which is not the case everywhere. And I think there is more to education than just a job, but it isn’t worth it just to pay $30k a year on something in order to “find yourself.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a question that should be asked in the presidential campaign. Mitt Romney for example seems to blame the expansion of federal loans for driving up tuition costs, but he fails to provide any meaningful solution except probably actually restricting federal loan availability and encouraging private lending, see e.g pages 16-19 and 29-33 of this [linked document]( <a href=“A Chance For Every Child | PDF | Education In The United States | Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act”>A Chance For Every Child | PDF | Education In The United States | Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act). </p>
<p>President Obama on the other hand is basically standing for more of the same, ignoring the bubble and actually inflating it further.</p>
<p>Not surprising, only rich schools survive. Is Ohio Northern Univ. a medical school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am also skeptical of on-line education and its potential to replace traditional in-person courses. However, the residential campus model, which is a unique feature of the American and, to a lesser extent, British systems of higher education, is indeed turning into a luxury we may not be able to afford in the future. I can foresee state universities in particular not necessarily moving to 100 % on-line degrees, but greatly downsizing residential halls and non-academic “campus life” in general in favor of more commuting/non-residential students, like the way public (i.e. government-funded) universities currently operate in countries such as France, Germany or Spain for example.</p>