Comments on Founder Explains U. of the People

• An early April Fool's joke, I'm sure
• Posted by Alfred on March 5, 2009 at 10:00am EST

• An online university in which students teach one another and faculty give input only when asked for it. This is a joke, right?

  If not, I suppose it's the logical conclusion to which the online diploma mill industry, now engorged with years of Bush-era corporate welfare, has led us. Long live the market. I realize anew each day what a prophetic movie Idiocracy was.

• It could be done
• Posted by Bob at UCF on March 5, 2009 at 11:30am EST

• I teach an online course to over 1000 students a semester. It uses frequently updated video lectures and a custom textbook to present students new ideas, interactive exercises to help students gain depth on important topics, frequent quizzes to keep students on a schedule and proctored exams to assess learning. The class regularly gets 4.4 to 4.5 out of 5 on student evaluations. Student learning outcomes are as good or better than the same class in live lectures. Class GPAs are only 2.8 to 2.9 out of 4 so it isn't an easy grade for students.

  Large scale online education can be done with high quality. There is still a lot of work to be done to help students learn to think creatively and develop writing skills in this format but progress is being made. I can't say whether or not this program will pull it off but large scale online education could educate the world for a reasonable price. Many are afraid of what it would do to the job market for faculty but when you consider how much good it could do to help poorer countries resistance seems almost immoral. Sure there is a lot of work needed to get this right but it should be given a chance.

• You've made my case
• Posted by Alfred on March 5, 2009 at 1:00pm EST

• Bob, if you're teaching 1000 students per semester, it goes without saying that these students are not getting the kind of individual attention that students can expect at most non-virtual colleges. (And I really wonder if you're being serious.)

  Let's be honest about why online diplomas are lately such a growth industry. It's not about the best interests of students. If it were, the University of Phoenix wouldn't have a 16% graduation rate. The sole purpose of most of these online diploma companies is to increase shareholder value. It's an attractive market given a Department of Education willing to make federal student loans available to those who enroll and a large population of dislocated workers desperate to be credentialed and thus vulnerable to being duped.

  If spreading the benefits of higher education were really the priority, we would make sure that income was no barrier to those who stand to benefit from the kinds of educations that the wealthy enjoy as a matter of course. Real colleges change lives because they ask students to step outside of the neighborhoods in which they grew up, forget their high school friendships for a while, and become part of a community of learners from around the world. You can't have this experience while typing on a laptop in your parent's basement. And more insularity is not what this country needs right now.

• 1000 semester is normal in non-virtual, too
• Posted by Erin on March 5, 2009 at 2:30pm EST

• Alfred - just hitting on the 1000/semester. Why do you think that doesn't happen in non-virtual teaching? It is common! Think about the freshman general ed courses in a large lecture hall with 200-500 students. Teach 2-3 of these in a semester... there's your 1000 non-virtual students.

• Nicholas Nickleby
• Posted by Lenore , Professor of English at LaGuardia Community College on March 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EST

• Read Dickens, Nicholas Nickleby--this is an electronic Dotheboys Hall.

• 1000 points of light
• Posted by themichiganguy on March 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EST

• There's a reason why millions turn to the online diploma. Unlike the non-virtual model, students who choose to get their degrees from these accredited online institutions appreciate the fact that the only barrier to entry is the cost. With the help of our government loan programs coupled with the fact that these online institutions cater to the students particular set of needs, unlike most non-virtual colleges, many people now have a shot at becoming educated - Further, in my experience the students of virtual colleges care more about access to an education - the individual attention from a teacher is hard to get if the student can't get in to begin with. This is why there is a market for these institutions.

• Normal?
• Posted by Alfred on March 5, 2009 at 4:00pm EST

• Liberal arts colleges and most comprehensive colleges don't offer them at all, at least in my experience. Where the lecture-hall courses that you're referring to are offered, the faculty member who teaches them typically shares instructional responsibilities with one or two (or more) graduate students who administer discussion groups and do some of the grading. I've never heard of a faculty member being made solely responsible for 1000 students per semester. You're not suggesting this is somehow desirable are you?

• Respect them or not, we need to pay attention to them
• Posted by Steve Carnes , Chief of Staff / Information Technology at University of Minnesota on March 5, 2009 at 7:00pm EST

• I don't think anyone would suggest that where this kind of idea has developed to at this point in time is working brilliantly - the birthing of radically new ideas always is a shaky process. However, if mainstream, liberal arts-based, four-year institutions simply mock them and say "They'll never be able to produce the results we do," we may be writing our own epitaph. There are ideas here we can learn from and utilize in our world, and I believe we ignore and denegrate the "wiki-world" that is upon us at our own peril. It's not going away.

• Everything isn't a Conspiracy
• Posted by Idealist on March 5, 2009 at 7:15pm EST

• Obviously on-line will not replace or be able to do the full spectrum of course subjects, but for the vast majority of the lecture/ listen/written type courses they work quite well. Students usually can review video or other electronic media as many times as they need to master the given information, unlike being a face in the crowd and having a one shot at the information. On-line courses develop written communication skills more so than lecture/ assignment courses. Please don’t assume all students are sitting in mom and dad’s basement. Don’t assume that even the majority of on-line students are fresh out of high school and know nothing of the real world. You would probably be wrong. Ironically, it is the fresh out of high school students that are the most distracted by campus life. If we are to educate the masses, we need to think of a mass education mode, but not dumbed down dilution. Intellectual arrogance, turf wars, and the 'my course is more rigorous than yours' crap are just that …

• Don't miss the point
• Posted by Alfred on March 5, 2009 at 8:30pm EST

• Whether new technologies can improve the quality of instruction is not at issue here. In some cases they undoubtedly can. If institutions want to experiment with new technologies, fine. Knock yourselves out.

  The question is whether we have any business accrediting schools whose instruction is provided entirely by adjunct faculty - or, in this case, the students themselves! When faculty aren't empowered by their institutions to act as impartial judges of students' work, when they're made to teach 1000 or more students per semester, or when, in this case, they disappear almost entirely from the instructional environment, what you're left with is not something that can be called higher education.

• Accredit?
• Posted by rfriberg , Vice President at UEWM on March 6, 2009 at 5:15am EST

• The US Education Department standards for accreditation require a new school to operate for at least two years before it can "start" the accreditation process. Also there needs to be graduates and qualified instructors to interview plus lots of other standards to meet. Good luck getting a US Education Department approved accreditor to bring this school into the accreditation system.

• Value?
• Posted by Math Prof on March 6, 2009 at 5:30am EST

• Does an undergraduate degree from a 4-year regional state university really have the same value as a Bachelor's degree from a traditional liberal arts college or most state flagship research universities? Probably not. A Bachelor's degree cobbled together from courses taken at three community colleges and two state universities over a ten year period will most likely have even less value. But, are these new fangled avenues through high ed of no value?

  The hype about online degrees is that they are of equal value to traditional degrees. This is clearly false. The question is are they of any value. McDonald's does feed people. Mal-Wart does cloth people. Will McEduation help people at all, or it is a scam? Will it provide people with at least some job skills and cultivation or merely give the illusion of education? The latter is quite dangerous as it deters people from pursuing the real thing.

• What about the rest of the world?
• Posted by Mackenzie Glander on March 6, 2009 at 1:45pm EST

• Most of you seem to think that this system would be in application in the US. What about the millions of people with limited or no access to higher education worldwide? Reshef is working out of Israel, for example. The US can keep its 'standards' but at least let the rest of the world have access to knowledge. And this approach is offering one type of access.

• Who is the April Fool?
• Posted by Who is the April Fool? , Director at What's a Matta U on March 6, 2009 at 2:30pm EST

• Although I don’t have a dog in this fight, in order to continue an honest and transparent dialogue:
  Albert’s 16% graduation rate calculus deceptively slants the argument. Let’s clarify this; shall we? According to Inside Higher Ed 10/22/08 "Alternative Measure of Success" : "According to the U.S. government, graduation rates are measured by the proportion of students who earn a degree within 150 percent of the expected time - six years for bachelors degree and three years for an associates degree". ..and here is the important part Albert: "The formula counts only one group of students: first time, full time students. Not surprisingly, elite residential colleges that serve well prepared students do well by this methodology as they routinely have rates in the 90's. But for many other colleges the graduation rate is both irrelevant (they have very few first-time, full time students)".
  In other words, most students who attend online universities including the University of Phoenix have often attended multiple colleges and are not “first-time full-time students” . The Federal graduation rate calculation ignores part-time continuing education students; those most attracted to alternative delivery of education and/or those who have limited access to affordable education and possibly best suited for this opportunity. As educators, let’s at least pretend to have open minds.

• Do your Homework!
• Posted by Value Continued.... , Statistics Professor at Northeastern on March 6, 2009 at 3:45pm EST

• I have to disagree with the Math Professor. What objective measure of value are you referring to? I would suggest you do a critical analysis and review any of the research conducted by the Sloan Consortium an organization recognized for its studies in online learning. They have studied the comparative value of online education versus traditinal classroom education for years. Their research completely contradicts your opinion. I would respectful suggest you look at the comparative assessments of both kinds of students. I understand this is a simple message board but it would be more intersting and valuable to those interested in learning if the opinions shared were more than rants.

  I agree with "What's a Matta U", lets have an honest dialogue within the context of actual facts rather than opinion. I have instructed both kinds of students and online learners are more eager, focused, disciplined and ready to learn than my classroom students (plus the write better too). Sorry if this doesn't align with your rant.

  If our traditional education is somehow superior as you seem to suggest why do our students from traditional colleges and universities continue to lag behind the rest of the world? Its time for a change and we should consider all of our options.

• No "Rant" Necessary
• Posted by DFS on March 6, 2009 at 8:30pm EST

• May God bless you for your continued pool of students genuinely taking afford of your offered classes.

  It's been my experience, however, that most of the students in my on-line classes are just there for the expediency -- that is, for the availability with the expectation of punching a ticket.

  Of course, on-line courses are kind of new here, and that's we're counting on. Of course, I live in the hinterlands.