Hacker News Reader

"Classes are only a fraction of the in-person university experience in the USA today."

It's ironic isn't it. What would the cost of purely attending classes and exams be? $2,000 or $3,000 a year?

But no, if citizens wish to educate and certify themselves (from a reputable institution I might add), they must purchase the full package including all the bells and whistles that come with societies, events, parties, support, guidance councillors on the side.

It's really time to introduce a "I just want to learn and sit for exams" package for those unable or unwilling to pay for the extras.

Those institutions absolutely exist, but no organization is under any obligation to cater to a pedagogical style they do not subscribe to. Simply go to a school that is the right fit for what you're looking for.

Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?

"Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?"

This is exactly the issue and I am in no way doubting that these approaches are more effective. However, at some point, a decision was made to choose between a fundamental trade-off of "maximizing the effectiveness of the experience" and "minimizing the barriers to entry".

I have heard of discussions in Germany (using as an example because I know what's going on) around whether the top tier universities (there is no real top-tier, they are all very good, but some have made a particular name for themselves) should charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience.

But there are strong arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level.

At the end of the day, if you are lucky enough to end up at a brilliant institution, you will find a way to cope and get the most out of the experience (maybe you must rely on less support, and activities and events are more in the hands of self-organising students). That, in my view, is a better scenario than having potential students/classmates not be able to engage with each other due to means that are (often but not always) outside of their control.

> charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience.

> arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level.

These ideas are not incompatible. You can both raise prices and ensure that financial means are not a barrier to entry. Simply take into account the financial means of the applicant. Most of the top schools in the US already do this and are tuition-free for students with lower (or even middle) income.

i.e.: https://studentloanhero.com/featured/free-college-tuition-pr...

The growth in the administrative side of education has been incredible as money from the government kept pouring - I read an article a few years ago about a university (Arizona?) with bloated administration that had built a dorm with a pool and a rock-climbing gym in order to attract students.

This is a problem for the exact reason you mention, but also:

> This includes facilities, support services, activities, athletics. Then there is just the socialization, dorm experience, meeting people, parties

> ...they need the ridiculously high tuition money (including from out-of-state and international students as mentioned)

And these students from China, India, and elsewhere don't care about the great basketball team at the university or the football tailgating events or the pool parties! (or at least not as much :)

The bloat has also resulted in a proliferation of degree programs by focusing on what can make the schools the most money. Thus not providing the real-world/educational requirements that may be necessary but not as "fun".

> (One thing I am ignoring is the real difficulties and cost from professors to teach large remote classes in an actually effective way. I'm sure administrators will ignore it too.)

One of my colleagues teaches intro physics to 1000+ students remotely. It seems to work quite well actually. His TAs screens the questions students have -- it's not like there are 1000 different ones, many a similar/same. He says the large audience is actually an advantage: If he explains something bad/wrong, at least some of them will pick up on it and ask.

In other words, it sounds not terribly different than how many webinars are conducted

Great! One thing I've heard that at that scale, a lot of the professor's time is taken by student logistics type issues.

On one hand, as a trainer, I hate remote sessions. They are a pitiful mascarade of the real thing. On the other hand, there are many things in education that can be done without the teacher. Besides many (many, many...) teachers are worse in person than in a youtube video, because they are bad in the first place, and at least the format give you convinience and choice.

> Classes are only a fraction of the in-person university experience in the USA today.

I guess it really depends on the type of student. If I were a college student now, classes alone indeed are a fraction of the in-person university experience. Besides classes, I'd also need:

  - Challenging homework and rigorous scoring and feedback -- this would be critical to my future success. Standard tests won't cut it as I need my professors and tutors give me feedbacks on my proofs, my homework, my assignments, and detailed and usually lengthy and overly verbose reports. 
  - Opportunities to work on a research project with my professors and senior students. 
  - Office hour with professors. 
  - Seminar-like classes that students and professors dive deep together on a subject.

Luckily, remote learning can enable all such requirements. The only inconvenience I can think of is that it will be hard to work on a math-intensive problem on a whiteboard, but even that is solvable with something like an iPad and a stylus.

Things I'll miss: libraries. I used to check out 10 to 20 books a time, and spend hours and hours in my college libraries reading them and doing assignments. Classmates turn to friends. There's so much fond memories of hanging out with friends I made in college. We can probably make it up by hanging out online, but the experience will be different from face-to-face interactions.

What I don't need and will be glad to see them gone: all kinds of crazy sports programs. Yeah, football or basketball or whatever. They're nice, but I'm not sure if they are multi-million-dollar nice, at least not to me. I don't give a rat's butt if Caltech didn't win collegiate basketball for 37 years. So what? For all I know, Caltech will be the best college as long it provides the best STEM courses and produces the best research results in the world.

Great perspective and it also gets at a big concern I have: almost everyone seems to think “remote = large scale” but that means opportunities for student-teacher interaction go to zero. No reason it has to scale like that though.

As a husband, parent of 3 young kids, and full-time dev, I only have time for classes, assignments, and exams. At my local University (UM-Flint), I pay almost $2,000 per 3 credit class. I’m also enrolled at Arizona State, which charges me about the same for its online-only experience because I’m “out-of-state”. In a way, I am subsidizing other students’ non-academic activities which probably have a net negative effect on society.

From a selfish and ideological standpoint, I would love to see non-academic aspects of universities dismantled.

John Cochrane, over at Hoover wrote about university finances in light of Covid19 a few months back. Worth a read.

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/04/university-financ...

Thanks, yes, I remember reading this great article. An especially good section on endowments and how frustrating it is that 2008 is repeating itself.