[oman]

I think it should be noted that most of the people here have a distorted view of college classes. Stanford has some of the best educators in the world. Low paying State institutions have the worst. Anyone who has sat in an auditorium with 200 freshman while a TA who speaks English as a second language gives a Chemistry lecture is going to have a different perspective. From this perspective, on-line courses look much more attractive.

Not sure what you mean by educators, but I would think that term would describe the learning experience both in and outside the classroom.  If we are focused on teaching, I would that that the teaching at "teaching universities" focused on undergrads would obviously lead to the best classroom experience.  As one of my English profs at Stanford told me: "You have some mistaken notion that Stanford is about teaching undergrads."  Ah, the bitter liberal arts prof. 

Both of my kids go to small liberal arts schools and both of them seem to have a far better classroom experience than I did at Stanford.  I agree with the notion that this is mostly my own fault, but if Stanford is like it was back when I went, I would venture to say that the specific classroom experience there is probably only a bit better than a large public institution at a state that can spend some money on its better institutions -- A&M would fall into that category. 

Online teaching, new theories about classroom experience -- all of these things make me think there is plenty of room for non-traditional approaches to the classroom.

Too me the issue is that a place like Stanford would look at the effect of this on OTHER students.  Stanford students gain from having people like Luck and Hogan go to class with them.  Students from A&M arguably lose out if they aren't exposed to people like JM. 

It's about not thinking about education in broad terms.

[oman]

I think it should be noted that most of the people here have a distorted view of college classes. Stanford has some of the best educators in the world. Low paying State institutions have the worst. Anyone who has sat in an auditorium with 200 freshman while a TA who speaks English as a second language gives a Chemistry lecture is going to have a different perspective. From this perspective, on-line courses look much more attractive.

Not sure what you mean by educators, but I would think that term would describe the learning experience both in and outside the classroom.  If we are focused on teaching, I would that that the teaching at "teaching universities" focused on undergrads would obviously lead to the best classroom experience.  As one of my English profs at Stanford told me: "You have some mistaken notion that Stanford is about teaching undergrads."  Ah, the bitter liberal arts prof. 

Both of my kids go to small liberal arts schools and both of them seem to have a far better classroom experience than I did at Stanford.  I agree with the notion that this is mostly my own fault, but if Stanford is like it was back when I went, I would venture to say that the specific classroom experience there is probably only a bit better than a large public institution at a state that can spend some money on its better institutions -- A&M would fall into that category. 

Online teaching, new theories about classroom experience -- all of these things make me think there is plenty of room for non-traditional approaches to the classroom.

Too me the issue is that a place like Stanford would look at the effect of this on OTHER students.  Stanford students gain from having people like Luck and Hogan go to class with them.  Students from A&M arguably lose out if they aren't exposed to people like JM. 

It's about not thinking about education in broad terms.