1. The education 2. The network 3. The brand
Even if 1 is not many times greater at Harvard than another institution, 2 and 3 are. Even without 2, a Harvard degree will send a signal that will open doors that might otherwise be closed.
(Not to diminish the extension school; I have a credit from it and I was satisfied at the quality of instruction, but the admissions is definitely not the same as Harvard admission)
Also, there are sites like HMX which is more in the realm of $1000 per class, and still not "the real thing". These classes are solid but they are just not comparable to actual classes at Harvard Medical School. My experience with taking classes versus trying out mass online learning has repeatedly resulted in "this is a nice amenity to have, but it is not a substitute for a proper course".
Does Harvard have a monopoly on undergraduate math, philosophy, etc. materials? No. But there is a huge difference between doing challenging problem sets/having complicated debates with a high quality peer group (+ access to top profs), and doing the most basic "understanding checks" with a random sampling of college students. I think it is silly to pretend the only value top schools provide beyond random U is the value of building up a network/credentials. That is part of it, but it is also actually much easier to get a better education at these schools.
I think there are two main problems with higher ed: 1) the top schools do not do a good enough job of admitting talented students across socioeconomic lines and 2) students are taking out debt to go to mid tier schools at unsustainable levels [especially because some of these students do not actually have a plan for college but feel pressured to rush into it]. There are also probably a bunch of lower tier private schools that should not exist.
Anyway, for some reason I get the sense HN takes these 2 problems and somehow comes to the complaint that "elite schools are a waste of money". Given the generous financial aid, the greater availability of classes and rigor of coursework, the career building resources, etc. I don't think you will find better value per dollar at any US schools than from the HYPSM+ cohort.
Students for whom it is at all feasible should just take a gap year this year IMO.
I think it depends on the course. I’m currently following "Fundamentals of Statistics" (https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:MITx+18.6501x+2T20...), and it’s clearly a recording of an IRL course. Same with "Introduction to Biology", and the whole Quantum Mechanics serie.
I didn't realize either that some amount of course credit could transfer from that program to a traditional Masters. However it also appears to require an in person exam in that case and the "semester equivalent tuition" is like $1500.
MicroMasters sounds like a good way to test the waters for those considering a Masters to me, especially if possibly switching fields. I am still skeptical that one could realistically get a full education via these resources though. [Noting of course that depending on use case you may not need a full education].
Even for OCW which in some cases is a carbon copy of the course materials, it takes a lot of self discipline and regular access to a good study group (or an expert you can ask questions) to get the same value out of one of those classes.