Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious what your qualifications are to recommend people do what you mention re education. Just wondering what has caused you to foresee such a vast chance in out system. If this is simply your opinion, that's fine, but, I'd like to know, plus, where are these free online courses?
A complete misunderstanding of how those sites will work.
Since you can home school, why can't you home college?
20yrsinBranson
There is no law that says you can't....
Of course there is no way to go on to graduate school without an actual undergraduate degree.
I am sure that the HR professionals receiving resumes that list under Education: University of Mom will give those resumes all the attention they deserve and file them appropriately.
The university model is perfect for them. Have you seen their acceptance rate and the demand?
Yup, I've also seen how much money they make from FED research money as well. Point being, as with the case of CALTECH and MIT, they both could get by without their undergrads. CALTECH has more grad students, or did, than undergrads, as does MIT. Which is the point I raised, if they really make their money from research and they have all the grad students they could possibly handle, then it makes sense that they'll change the undergrad model shortly. And to do that, see what the market will bear, put out content for free on the net, gauge the response, when it gets big enough, then see if you can charge for it, and make your undergrad money that way.
Yup, I've also seen how much money they make from FED research money as well. Point being, as with the case of CALTECH and MIT, they both could get by without their undergrads. CALTECH has more grad students, or did, than undergrads, as does MIT. Which is the point I raised, if they really make their money from research and they have all the grad students they could possibly handle, then it makes sense that they'll change the undergrad model shortly. And to do that, see what the market will bear, put out content for free on the net, gauge the response, when it gets big enough, then see if you can charge for it, and make your undergrad money that way.
These online courses have something like a 10% completion rate, and, are still in the experimental stage; even though they are old news by now. However, schools have begun to look into how to monetize from these "free" on-line courses.
As for MIT, very few graduate students pay full price for tuition. Most get some sort of stipend, scholarship, grant, or other form aid that pays for most, if not all, of their tuition and with some of MITs programs students not only have tuition paid for, but also receive a stipend. Considering that MIT still requires all undergraduate students to pass a swim test as requirement for graduation, I doubt they'll be changing anytime soon. Yup, that is a swim test, as in swimming...in a pool. Why? Who knows, but like Yale and Princeton and Harvard (and a few others), they are one of the most traditional college campuses in the U.S. And believe me, with the shear number of undergraduate applications they receive every year, they do not need to change anything.
These online courses have something like a 10% completion rate, and, are still in the experimental stage; even though they are old news by now. However, schools have begun to look into how to monetize from these "free" on-line courses.
As for MIT, very few graduate students pay full price for tuition. Most get some sort of stipend, scholarship, grant, or other form aid that pays for most, if not all, of their tuition and with some of MITs programs students not only have tuition paid for, but also receive a stipend. Considering that MIT still requires all undergraduate students to pass a swim test as requirement for graduation, I doubt they'll be changing anytime soon. Yup, that is a swim test, as in swimming...in a pool. Why? Who knows, but like Yale and Princeton and Harvard (and a few others), they are one of the most traditional college campuses in the U.S. And believe me, with the shear number of undergraduate applications they receive every year, they do not need to change anything.
Oh, I don't know about that. You kind of missed the point, the grad students for the most part get subsidized, due to the FED money which they receive, underscoring what I said that they make more from their research programs than they do from undergraduate teaching. Which is the point, follow the money, and the money is telling you that it will be primarily research grants which will sustain the unis, not their undergrads.
And so what if they have many undergrad applications, all universities have more and more undergrads coming onto their campuses than ever before. That hardly excludes the very likely possibility that they will have major changes coming.
Having studied physics and getting to know many of my professors quite well, the youngest ones were my age, and having been a research monkey, I came to understand that in STEM, the undergrad programs are a nuisance. Tenure comes due to research and the sale of that research, not from undergrad teaching. The massive building projects that have taken place on most campuses are geared to STEM, not the liberal arts or the business departments. The reason is to attract research money and house the growing number of STEM administrators. As I pointed out, both MIT/CALTECH have more grad students than undergrads, which seems to be a point many people miss. Those schools could cut their undergrads in half and still have no problem keeping the doors open. And the faculty would be quite happy if they didn't have to walk into a undergrad classroom ever again. It isn't a fluke that many of the most difficult classes in STEM are taught by untenured professors, the tenured ones want as little to do with undergrads as possible. It costs them money to teach undergrads, it takes time away from chasing money and applying that teaching time to that pursuit. If none of you have ever been in on a STEM meeting or heard these people talk about what matters most, namely money, then you don't know much.
Now the dilemma is that most, if not all, FED research comes with a caveat that it must have some public purpose, that the research must somehow serve a public interest. And part of that is to teach undergrads. If you're going to get public money, then in some way, that has to be used to do more than just get you tenured and holed up in your lab with your underpaid assistant monkeys. That is why STEM departments have to teach their undergrads. But if they can put content out on the net, maybe charge a nominal fee, if anything, and, in a few years, say that this is good enough as a traditional classroom experience, and then say you can get a degree of some kind, then it may very well be why this stuff is going out now. I don't for a moment believe that it is completely altruistic, though there may be some component to that. This is being done in order to more properly test the capacity for such an undergrad program being instituted within US colleges. The traditional universities are going to change very soon. The student loans bubble has burst, the universities, both public and private, are going to see less direct FED subsidization of undergrad programs, and it will be a much more difficult time in academia...
Can you think of another industry or area of life that charges higher than inflation prices (year after year) for something that's over supplied in the market (by 13 million! 41 million college grads out there, 28 million jobs requiring a college degree).
-The truth is traditional college needs *radical*, *radical* changes. The truth is 1/3 or 1/2 of traditional colleges shouldn't even be in business. The degrees aren't needed, + they've been watered down (the need for remedial classes, watering down of highschool) + the increase in lightweight, feel good degrees (women studies, latino studies, etc). Plus the Tier 2, Tier 3 law schools?
The traditional university should have started changing 15 years ago. More technological change (big textbooks would be a thing of the past now). More adaption and innovation. More bang for the buck. You don't pay $60 k for a liberal arts degree in basket weaving.
-In 10 or 20 years, there will be a hybrid between free and what universities charge now. Maybe a flattening like American and Chinese/Asian wages? What would prevent it?
Maybe online for free and charge students to access professors for help? I think there's a balance between what they're doing now and free. The university business $$$$ juggernaut is very, very entrenched. It's like turning the Titanic or an oil tanker. You're not going to learn to be a doctor or chemist online, but why not 30-40% of other degrees? There's a lot you can take online that happens now in a traditional classroom. They're going to drag their feet, and do everything to fight it.
-Also online learning will show if the emperor has any clothes. Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc...they can't just live on their name or prestige. I think there will be more scrutiny for all universities.
Yup, I've also seen how much money they make from FED research money as well. Point being, as with the case of CALTECH and MIT, they both could get by without their undergrads. CALTECH has more grad students, or did, than undergrads, as does MIT. Which is the point I raised, if they really make their money from research and they have all the grad students they could possibly handle, then it makes sense that they'll change the undergrad model shortly. And to do that, see what the market will bear, put out content for free on the net, gauge the response, when it gets big enough, then see if you can charge for it, and make your undergrad money that way.
There is zero chance this would ever happen. Many graduate students at these elite schools came from undergrad at the other elite schools. 99% of the population could not do the work to graduate from these schools so taking it "online" doesn't open much up for them.
Oh, I don't know about that. You kind of missed the point, the grad students for the most part get subsidized, due to the FED money which they receive, underscoring what I said that they make more from their research programs than they do from undergraduate teaching. Which is the point, follow the money, and the money is telling you that it will be primarily research grants which will sustain the unis, not their undergrads.
And so what if they have many undergrad applications, all universities have more and more undergrads coming onto their campuses than ever before. That hardly excludes the very likely possibility that they will have major changes coming.
Having studied physics and getting to know many of my professors quite well, the youngest ones were my age, and having been a research monkey, I came to understand that in STEM, the undergrad programs are a nuisance. Tenure comes due to research and the sale of that research, not from undergrad teaching. The massive building projects that have taken place on most campuses are geared to STEM, not the liberal arts or the business departments. The reason is to attract research money and house the growing number of STEM administrators. As I pointed out, both MIT/CALTECH have more grad students than undergrads, which seems to be a point many people miss. Those schools could cut their undergrads in half and still have no problem keeping the doors open. And the faculty would be quite happy if they didn't have to walk into a undergrad classroom ever again. It isn't a fluke that many of the most difficult classes in STEM are taught by untenured professors, the tenured ones want as little to do with undergrads as possible. It costs them money to teach undergrads, it takes time away from chasing money and applying that teaching time to that pursuit. If none of you have ever been in on a STEM meeting or heard these people talk about what matters most, namely money, then you don't know much.
Now the dilemma is that most, if not all, FED research comes with a caveat that it must have some public purpose, that the research must somehow serve a public interest. And part of that is to teach undergrads. If you're going to get public money, then in some way, that has to be used to do more than just get you tenured and holed up in your lab with your underpaid assistant monkeys. That is why STEM departments have to teach their undergrads. But if they can put content out on the net, maybe charge a nominal fee, if anything, and, in a few years, say that this is good enough as a traditional classroom experience, and then say you can get a degree of some kind, then it may very well be why this stuff is going out now. I don't for a moment believe that it is completely altruistic, though there may be some component to that. This is being done in order to more properly test the capacity for such an undergrad program being instituted within US colleges. The traditional universities are going to change very soon. The student loans bubble has burst, the universities, both public and private, are going to see less direct FED subsidization of undergrad programs, and it will be a much more difficult time in academia...
You don't realize what makes elite schools "elite". It's only letting the best students into their school. These schools will have zero impact if the student loan bubble bursts. The income of families that go to these schools are well over 100k and the ones who are poor go for free.
You don't maintain elite status buy giving out online degrees when you have thousands dying to pay full tuition that you reject every year.
Can you think of another industry or area of life that charges higher than inflation prices (year after year) for something that's over supplied in the market (by 13 million! 41 million college grads out there, 28 million jobs requiring a college degree).
-The truth is traditional college needs *radical*, *radical* changes. The truth is 1/3 or 1/2 of traditional colleges shouldn't even be in business. The degrees aren't needed, + they've been watered down (the need for remedial classes, watering down of highschool) + the increase in lightweight, feel good degrees (women studies, latino studies, etc). Plus the Tier 2, Tier 3 law schools?
The traditional university should have started changing 15 years ago. More technological change (big textbooks would be a thing of the past now). More adaption and innovation. More bang for the buck. You don't pay $60 k for a liberal arts degree in basket weaving.
-In 10 or 20 years, there will be a hybrid between free and what universities charge now. Maybe a flattening like American and Chinese/Asian wages? What would prevent it?
Maybe online for free and charge students to access professors for help? I think there's a balance between what they're doing now and free. The university business $$$$ juggernaut is very, very entrenched. It's like turning the Titanic or an oil tanker. You're not going to learn to be a doctor or chemist online, but why not 30-40% of other degrees? There's a lot you can take online that happens now in a traditional classroom. They're going to drag their feet, and do everything to fight it.
-Also online learning will show if the emperor has any clothes. Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc...they can't just live on their name or prestige. I think there will be more scrutiny for all universities.
The sure can and many more top schools also. These universities have billion dollar endowments and most of their students have family incomes over 100k. They reject tens of thousands of students each year that are dying to pay full tuition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
