A Virtual Revolution Is Brewing for Colleges | Hacker News Reader

A Virtual Revolution Is Brewing for Colleges

washingtonpost.com

The story's on point but is really a promotional piece masking as news -- which is disappointing. The Washington Post owns Kaplan University.

I'm all for online coursework but we're still a ways away from standardized testing for nationally recognized credit.

I'm starting to think this meme has some PR money behind it: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I doubt it. This is basically an op-ed. From what looks to be the original article: "Zephyr Teachout is an associate law professor at Fordham University, a writer, and an online entrepreneur."

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/diploma-mill/2009/09/08/...

There's a slight chance that there's education involved in her "online entrepreneurship," in which case you're probably right.

I am not sure online learning is for everyone or for every age.

College is much more than the classes. And I believe the "suspended reality" when attending college actually helps learning. And I don't count being able to answer online multiple choice questions as having learned something. Education is not cramming knowledge in your skull, and a course is not just going through the cartesian description of the subjects it covers. And lastly what makes a class good is not only the teacher but what emerges from the group in terms of dynamics, attitude, atmosphere and feeling. I would believe that if watching a lecture by Feynman on the web is inspiring, being in is class was much more.

If what the article describes really is the future, I probably would have dropped out and become a mechanic or something.

While I agree about what college used to be and what it should be the reality is vastly different. College is turning into an extension of highschool where the grades don't reflect the students but the course/teacher/college. When I first arrived I read and signed a piece of paper, I believed in, about the honor code; how cheating undermines the student and university. The reality was cheating was so rampant I thought I was the only one that bothered to read that paper.

And I can see why it was so popular. Recruiters weren't interested in what type of student you were, just what your GPA/QCA was. I asked some of my friends why they chose to cheat and the answer was they 'needed' a grade. It wasn't what they needed, it was the job they 'needed' wanted them to have a minimum 3.5 GPA. I realized, a bit late, that college was not about learning, but getting a good job in some big company. I wasn't a great student, but I learned a lot through participating in projects and contributing something to the university besides tuition. I handed my CV out to a lot of companies and most just gave it back after reading my GPA completely ignoring my work on battery and solar powered vehicles.

Now when I give advice on college it's basically do whatever you need to to graduate, education be damned. As far as I'm concerned education is the last thing on the colleges' minds. Universities have raised the stakes so high it stopped being about learning and all about buying an education.

> When I first arrived I read and signed a piece of paper.

You should have made the university sign a paper saying it wasn't going to cheat you out good learning environment. A university where it is possible to cheat and it is part of the culture is also cheating you out of your money and learning.

I think telling what you just told here to an employee should make them not look at your GPA as much, and you probably don't really want to work for a company that looks at GPA only.

Well, when I wrote my comment I was not thinking of college as something you do to get a job or to get grades even if this is what many people are in it for.

If all someone is looking for is a paper, grades and a job. Then what it article offers seems inevitable. Teh we'll need something else to replace college

You have many excellent points.

I am not sure that calling it "suspended reality" is accurate though. For many, especially those on either very good scholarships or with well off parents, it is an extension of high school. But that just means they get a more gradual transition from high school to the working world.

Then there are a lot of people like me. I worked full time while going to school full time to get my undergrad and now I am working full time and going to school part time working on my masters, both at traditional State colleges. I got married during my undergrad and my second child was born while I was working on my masters. Reality has certainly not been suspended for people in that kind of situation.

I do agree that the Focus and immersion that going to classes in person on a campus surrounded by other students provides a lot of value, if that is what you were getting at.

Would you be willing to spend $100k in 4 years to be "part of the group dynamics" ? Perhaps so.

The university is a networking place, a place to meet future business partners. There is some value in that. Or perhaps,going to a particular university has become a singaling mechanism to communicate "my family is rich and can afford to send me here", or "I am so smart I was picked from 10,000 candidates to attend this prestigious college. That makes me special." and so on ...

I am just not sure that a $100k worth of student loans is a good price for that. Someone can already be a part of community life, participate in open source projects, go to conferences , sprints, etc. It might be exactly the same but for someone not having that $100k is certinaly a good enough option.

You got me thinking, maybe I could sum it up better this way: I don't think it is about getting trivia knowledge or a community, or meeting people, it is about getting a change of mind. I always saw the goal as to change the way you see the world. I am not a reference but is I think why all the articles of that style don't resonate well with me.

Students starting school this year may be part of the last generation for which "going to college" means packing up, getting a dorm room and listening to tenured professors.

Will they also be the last generation to listen to radio now that TV has been invented and the last generation to drive cars now that airplanes have been invented?

OP overlooks a whole bunch of other needs that colleges fulfill. The interaction with other students, both in class and at home. The interaction with professors. The contacts made. The opportunities to explore many new things by virture of actually being there.

Technology is great. It moves us forward in many ways. But in many situations, nothing is a substitute for actually being there.

This is exactly right. This is why I don't understand many of the "just learn online" posts on HN. If you're going to college for only the information, then I think there's no reason to come. However, there is much more offered than just information.

But the question is is this advantage worth the ever-increasing tuition prices for most students? Before there wasn't a choice, now we'll see what the market effect of the competition of different education models will result in.

Agreed. I think the online classes/online colleges will supplement rather than replace traditional colleges.

They can be convenient for someone at a traditional college who has scheduling issues and they can help people attend college who otherwise would not be able to, but I suspect that there will be plenty of need for the things physical colleges provide above and beyond simple information for a long time.

I place a high value on the immersive interaction with other students that come even outside the classroom with campus life. A few years ago I even chided some incoming students for considering cell phones a necessity for keeping in touch with people at home and friends who had gone to other schools, since I think that separation was an important part of going away to school.

Having established my bonafides as a crusty traditionalist, I need to point out that the very fact that we are all discussing this issue is evidence that technology may provide reasonable substitutes for the interactions you speak of. They may be a weak substitute for the premium product, but that doesn't mean that they don't have huge benefits to those who can't afford the premium product, whose only options are either nothing at all, or whatever is offered at the nearest community college (not to knock community colleges). Is there any reason we don't think the virtual offerings will improve in the future?

University education is very prime for a reworking. However, it will not be done the way described in this article.

I don't want to give out all of my ideas, specifically since I plan on working on this myself. However, a few leading questions:

Why were universities established? What problems did they solve? What problems do they still solve? Do they solve them well?

Universities solve problems P via method M. The trouble with what is mentioned in the article is that it simply moves M onto the internet, it does not go back and reevaluate the original set of P. And, again, if the solutions to the original problems are wrong, they wont do much better online.

The same is true for the newspaper industry.

Wow, that's a big shift! I like the idea of the best professors nation-wide rising to the top, so that all students can benefit from their captivating lectures rather than be stuck with their boring local professors.

What I don't get, is how you overcome cheating on online exams. Of course I think the best answer is that we need to introduce apprenticeships into more career areas, and stop viewing college as a four year block of time, where you prepare yourself to be a productive member of the workforce.

Apprenticeships would work great. Some colleges have co-op in their engineering collages. Those are great. They put you behind one year, but at the end of 5 years, you end up with 1 year of professional experience under your belt. That makes you much more hirable.

Or you can have oral exams and make the student travel once at the end of each quarter to be examined by a panel of professors.

Or assign open-ended problems to each individual student. Or have more project assignments that would illustrate or require understanding the theory.

On universities, material isn't important, social interaction is.

Alright, then paying $100k in student loans for social interaction is a little screwed up. I am not saying it doesn't work, just that it is a little crazy.

I think universities are the next bubble to burst, they have inflated their grades and their tuition so much, it is ridiculous.

In the meantime, they are full of professors who have tenure and sit on their behinds all day not doing anything, or being too absorbed into their research and not giving a damn about undergraduate students who pay thousands of dollars per credit hour to be there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com