[BigEasyCard]

In a single thread we have a serious discussion of the pros and cons of online classes as well as some entertaining humor.

Just another reason to love The CARDboard.

[BigEasyCard]

In a single thread we have a serious discussion of the pros and cons of online classes as well as some entertaining humor.

Just another reason to love The CARDboard.

[jacketree]

I took self-shaft physics as a sophomore.  Imagine if Al Gore had invented widespread use of the internet in 1982!

[jacketree]

I took self-shaft physics as a sophomore.  Imagine if Al Gore had invented widespread use of the internet in 1982!

[fullmetal]

Online courses seems like a good deal for Manziel.  I wouldn't expect him to care much for the quality of his academics.  For all I know, he's got an entourage of academic helpers assisting with the online courses...man, it's good to be a football player at A&M (for certain values of "good").

[fullmetal]

Online courses seems like a good deal for Manziel.  I wouldn't expect him to care much for the quality of his academics.  For all I know, he's got an entourage of academic helpers assisting with the online courses...man, it's good to be a football player at A&M (for certain values of "good").

[Extra Point]

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.

[Extra Point]

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.

[fullmetal]

Actually, that happened maybe once or twice to me when the prof had to be absent and had a TA stand in (iirc).  I do remember a couple of courses where the TAs barely had any command of the language :(  TA office hours were a bust.

[fullmetal]

Actually, that happened maybe once or twice to me when the prof had to be absent and had a TA stand in (iirc).  I do remember a couple of courses where the TAs barely had any command of the language :(  TA office hours were a bust.

[jayasena]

I don't know, Extra Point. Even in my relatively short career, I've had stellar colleagues who graduated from Cal States and various state universities in the mid-west etc. (not to mention the better-regarded UCs). Even our own university president is a SUNY grad. I think anyone can get a good education at pretty much any accredited US university at the undergraduate level if you are willing to put in the effort. I think it's that "putting in the effort" part that's very much in question in this particular case.

[jayasena]

I don't know, Extra Point. Even in my relatively short career, I've had stellar colleagues who graduated from Cal States and various state universities in the mid-west etc. (not to mention the better-regarded UCs). Even our own university president is a SUNY grad. I think anyone can get a good education at pretty much any accredited US university at the undergraduate level if you are willing to put in the effort. I think it's that "putting in the effort" part that's very much in question in this particular case.

[yvonne]

Accreditation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an institution. Heald College is accredited through the same body (WASC) as Stanford is. An accreditation board simply asks schools what their goals are and to keep a record of what they've done to achieve those goals. So, let's say both Heald and Stanford offer course goals  the same goal of teaching critical thinking. The Stanford class will keep copies of papers with rhetorical devices, analysis of opposing views, outside citations, personally conducted studies, and so on. The Heald class might include a quiz on logical fallacies. Both can claim they taught the same thing, even though they reach different levels in Bloom's taxonomy.

So, it's not possible to get an education at any accredited university. Moreover, much of what a university is has nothing to do with what goes on in the classroom. So, at a major state university or a major private research institution, I'm going to hear from ex- presidents, opera singers, civil rights leaders, poet laureates, and the like, but I'm not likely to receive that exposure at smaller, less prestigious schools. 

[yvonne]

Accreditation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an institution. Heald College is accredited through the same body (WASC) as Stanford is. An accreditation board simply asks schools what their goals are and to keep a record of what they've done to achieve those goals. So, let's say both Heald and Stanford offer course goals  the same goal of teaching critical thinking. The Stanford class will keep copies of papers with rhetorical devices, analysis of opposing views, outside citations, personally conducted studies, and so on. The Heald class might include a quiz on logical fallacies. Both can claim they taught the same thing, even though they reach different levels in Bloom's taxonomy.

So, it's not possible to get an education at any accredited university. Moreover, much of what a university is has nothing to do with what goes on in the classroom. So, at a major state university or a major private research institution, I'm going to hear from ex- presidents, opera singers, civil rights leaders, poet laureates, and the like, but I'm not likely to receive that exposure at smaller, less prestigious schools. 

[jayasena]

Accreditation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an institution. Heald College is accredited through the same body (WASC) as Stanford is. An accreditation board simply asks schools what their goals are and to keep a record of what they've done to achieve those goals. So, let's say both Heald and Stanford offer course goals  the same goal of teaching critical thinking. The Stanford class will keep copies of papers with rhetorical devices, analysis of opposing views, outside citations, personally conducted studies, and so on. The Heald class might include a quiz on logical fallacies. Both can claim they taught the same thing, even though they reach different levels in Bloom's taxonomy.

So, it's not possible to get an education at any accredited university. Moreover, much of what a university is has nothing to do with what goes on in the classroom. So, at a major state university or a major private research institution, I'm going to hear from ex- presidents, opera singers, civil rights leaders, poet laureates, and the like, but I'm not likely to receive that exposure at smaller, less prestigious schools.

Perhaps accreditation is the wrong metric. What I was trying to say is that a motivated student can get a good undergraduate education at any university that provides reasonable support for higher education. I would think A&M meets that criterion. It might be "easier" to do so at a better school but motivation on the part of the student seems to be the more important component, at least based on the people I've met. Of course, better schools often benefit from getting the more motivated students to begin with.

In other words, I'm not buying that this particular case is a matter of the quality of instruction at A&M not being good enough.

[jayasena]

Accreditation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an institution. Heald College is accredited through the same body (WASC) as Stanford is. An accreditation board simply asks schools what their goals are and to keep a record of what they've done to achieve those goals. So, let's say both Heald and Stanford offer course goals  the same goal of teaching critical thinking. The Stanford class will keep copies of papers with rhetorical devices, analysis of opposing views, outside citations, personally conducted studies, and so on. The Heald class might include a quiz on logical fallacies. Both can claim they taught the same thing, even though they reach different levels in Bloom's taxonomy.

So, it's not possible to get an education at any accredited university. Moreover, much of what a university is has nothing to do with what goes on in the classroom. So, at a major state university or a major private research institution, I'm going to hear from ex- presidents, opera singers, civil rights leaders, poet laureates, and the like, but I'm not likely to receive that exposure at smaller, less prestigious schools.

Perhaps accreditation is the wrong metric. What I was trying to say is that a motivated student can get a good undergraduate education at any university that provides reasonable support for higher education. I would think A&M meets that criterion. It might be "easier" to do so at a better school but motivation on the part of the student seems to be the more important component, at least based on the people I've met. Of course, better schools often benefit from getting the more motivated students to begin with.

In other words, I'm not buying that this particular case is a matter of the quality of instruction at A&M not being good enough.

[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.

[Extra Point]

"I think anyone can get a good education at pretty much any accredited US university at the undergraduate level if you are willing to put in the effort."

This supports my point: So if you can get a good education by putting in the effort even if the instruction sucks, why not do it on-line and and avoid some misery.

As for the quality of student life, there are a number of state schools that are lowering their admission standards so that they put more freshman in large classes taught by TA's. The schools are well aware that they will not graduate all of these students. In the second semester (after they have sent a donation request letter to the parents) they start enrolling them in "weed out" classes. I understand that the University of Oregon has adopted this strategy.

Where I went to school, courses like calculus and physics had a 40% flunk out rate. Those that survive this quality education generally have good survival skills though, and this has helped me.

[Extra Point]

"I think anyone can get a good education at pretty much any accredited US university at the undergraduate level if you are willing to put in the effort."

This supports my point: So if you can get a good education by putting in the effort even if the instruction sucks, why not do it on-line and and avoid some misery.

As for the quality of student life, there are a number of state schools that are lowering their admission standards so that they put more freshman in large classes taught by TA's. The schools are well aware that they will not graduate all of these students. In the second semester (after they have sent a donation request letter to the parents) they start enrolling them in "weed out" classes. I understand that the University of Oregon has adopted this strategy.

Where I went to school, courses like calculus and physics had a 40% flunk out rate. Those that survive this quality education generally have good survival skills though, and this has helped me.

[jacketree]

I don't know about that. There is a certain espirit de corps when you are getting the collective shaft 24/7. I don't remember a wreck that we didn't weld "TEXUX" in a prominent location. At GT you worked hard for your F, but we rooted pretty passionately for some pretty awful teams outside of class.

I wouldn't say I had a uniformly good (albeit brief) classroom experience at Stanford.  I had two professors who were absolutely outstanding. That was worth about 8 classes.  The remaining professors (and classes) ranged from "adequate" to "dog crap". The crappiest dog was supposedly pretty famous in his field and had published a million articles. Couldn't teach worth ****.  And as a graduate student, one of my major classes was taught by a TA (I was a TA for cripes sakes!) who was on our flag football and inner-tube water polo teams.  Something is just not right about that.

The ratio at Tech was probably about the same.  Two good experiences for every six, uh to be charitable, "other" experiences. Ah, the college memories come flooding back......

"Look to your right; look to your left. One of you won't be here next year."  (First statement, freshman orientation. Welcome to Tech!)

"If Mr. Jacketree would have phrased that question intelligently, perhaps I would have answered it." (Dr. Hey F You, in the computer graphics class I should have skipped senior year).

"You are a waste of my time. I have important research!!"  (Dr. "I don't use real numbers on Dynamics tests" Renzepi, ESM 2002. What? There is a dynamics emergency somewhere?)

"Monday is the Final. Tuesday the world will fully understand how utterly stupid each and every one of you are. Goodnight." (Dr. Rudolf "Hess" Ahrens, Physics 2011, during the shortest last class of dead weak ever.)

"I will shaft you....I will shaft you all!!!!!!" (Dr. Has No Known First Name Chen, aka 'the Bamboo Shaft', ESM 2003, def bods)

"My previous class referred to me as a weasel. One of the students even shoved a picture of a weasel under my office door. I am proudly posting it here as a badge of honor and to provide you with a subtle reminder that weasels represent the best of cunning and deceit in the animal kingdom. You are hereby warned." (Dr. Andrew in 'man I'm ****ed' Linear Algebra right after I got back from my first Mardi Gras.)

"Christ, you got a seven [out of 100] on the midterm. Who the hell gets a seven on an easy midterm like this?" (Ghandi's and Harry Truman's Lovechild during Physics 2012, the dreaded emag, to me as he passes out graded midterms alphabetically while moving through the classroom.) "Not this guy." (To the next on the list.)  "No. No, he receives a five!"  (This parade proceeds to its ultimate conclusion during the 8:00 class. High score?  14.) "Well, I'm grading on a curve right? This isn't so bad, right? (Very pregnant pause.....Smashes giant chalk holder into smithereens across his desk) "No!!!!!!!!!" (picks up small busted pieces of chalk and spends what feels like six hours finding one large enough before shuffling over to the board and writing a giant F that doesn't have the - because the chalk disintegrates within the fury of his trembling hands) "You all have an F in my class. All of you! Efffffffffff!!  I will not tolerate such stupidity. You have left me no choice but to fail you all! This is easy material. A child could master it!"  And from the back of the classroom in one of the all time greatest classroom experiences: "Hey ****wad! Master THIS!!" Dude throws his physics textbook Oddjob style into the chalkboard, missing the prof by inches, before leaving the class (and perhaps Tech?) forever.

"Don't look at me like I care what happens to y'all."  (Dr. A. B. "Cookbook" or "Concrete" Caseman, CE 4214)

"We will devil up a moment diagram." (Dr. Haldar like a million times over the course of 2.5 years of structural classes.  Devil up? What are you talking about? About six years later during work it finally hits me.  Develop! Oh man, I thought he was some sort of closet satanist. OK gotcha....)

"That is simply beyond your comprehension." (Miss Maxine Turner, technical writing professor, old bag, and author of a textbook, in response to my simple inquiry as to why her book's index was not in alphabetical order. I still have the book and it remains an elusive and useless mystery.  Random sample of order: "purpose, scope, situation, chart, style, visual design, memorandums, audience".)

"I would just assume you all drown, but then I suppose this wouldn't be drownproofing, would it? Crap, I'd probably get fired."  (That was actually pretty funny from Whatshisname, PE1010 - the lowest numbered class and my graduating Spring. Woot!)

[jacketree]

I don't know about that. There is a certain espirit de corps when you are getting the collective shaft 24/7. I don't remember a wreck that we didn't weld "TEXUX" in a prominent location. At GT you worked hard for your F, but we rooted pretty passionately for some pretty awful teams outside of class.

I wouldn't say I had a uniformly good (albeit brief) classroom experience at Stanford.  I had two professors who were absolutely outstanding. That was worth about 8 classes.  The remaining professors (and classes) ranged from "adequate" to "dog crap". The crappiest dog was supposedly pretty famous in his field and had published a million articles. Couldn't teach worth ****.  And as a graduate student, one of my major classes was taught by a TA (I was a TA for cripes sakes!) who was on our flag football and inner-tube water polo teams.  Something is just not right about that.

The ratio at Tech was probably about the same.  Two good experiences for every six, uh to be charitable, "other" experiences. Ah, the college memories come flooding back......

"Look to your right; look to your left. One of you won't be here next year."  (First statement, freshman orientation. Welcome to Tech!)

"If Mr. Jacketree would have phrased that question intelligently, perhaps I would have answered it." (Dr. Hey F You, in the computer graphics class I should have skipped senior year).

"You are a waste of my time. I have important research!!"  (Dr. "I don't use real numbers on Dynamics tests" Renzepi, ESM 2002. What? There is a dynamics emergency somewhere?)

"Monday is the Final. Tuesday the world will fully understand how utterly stupid each and every one of you are. Goodnight." (Dr. Rudolf "Hess" Ahrens, Physics 2011, during the shortest last class of dead weak ever.)

"I will shaft you....I will shaft you all!!!!!!" (Dr. Has No Known First Name Chen, aka 'the Bamboo Shaft', ESM 2003, def bods)

"My previous class referred to me as a weasel. One of the students even shoved a picture of a weasel under my office door. I am proudly posting it here as a badge of honor and to provide you with a subtle reminder that weasels represent the best of cunning and deceit in the animal kingdom. You are hereby warned." (Dr. Andrew in 'man I'm ****ed' Linear Algebra right after I got back from my first Mardi Gras.)

"Christ, you got a seven [out of 100] on the midterm. Who the hell gets a seven on an easy midterm like this?" (Ghandi's and Harry Truman's Lovechild during Physics 2012, the dreaded emag, to me as he passes out graded midterms alphabetically while moving through the classroom.) "Not this guy." (To the next on the list.)  "No. No, he receives a five!"  (This parade proceeds to its ultimate conclusion during the 8:00 class. High score?  14.) "Well, I'm grading on a curve right? This isn't so bad, right? (Very pregnant pause.....Smashes giant chalk holder into smithereens across his desk) "No!!!!!!!!!" (picks up small busted pieces of chalk and spends what feels like six hours finding one large enough before shuffling over to the board and writing a giant F that doesn't have the - because the chalk disintegrates within the fury of his trembling hands) "You all have an F in my class. All of you! Efffffffffff!!  I will not tolerate such stupidity. You have left me no choice but to fail you all! This is easy material. A child could master it!"  And from the back of the classroom in one of the all time greatest classroom experiences: "Hey ****wad! Master THIS!!" Dude throws his physics textbook Oddjob style into the chalkboard, missing the prof by inches, before leaving the class (and perhaps Tech?) forever.

"Don't look at me like I care what happens to y'all."  (Dr. A. B. "Cookbook" or "Concrete" Caseman, CE 4214)

"We will devil up a moment diagram." (Dr. Haldar like a million times over the course of 2.5 years of structural classes.  Devil up? What are you talking about? About six years later during work it finally hits me.  Develop! Oh man, I thought he was some sort of closet satanist. OK gotcha....)

"That is simply beyond your comprehension." (Miss Maxine Turner, technical writing professor, old bag, and author of a textbook, in response to my simple inquiry as to why her book's index was not in alphabetical order. I still have the book and it remains an elusive and useless mystery.  Random sample of order: "purpose, scope, situation, chart, style, visual design, memorandums, audience".)

"I would just assume you all drown, but then I suppose this wouldn't be drownproofing, would it? Crap, I'd probably get fired."  (That was actually pretty funny from Whatshisname, PE1010 - the lowest numbered class and my graduating Spring. Woot!)

[oman]

I'm startled to hear that some CardBoard posters didn't have a good classroom experience at Stanford. I certainly did. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be here.

Maybe you would be in Paris?  Or in Vegas with a leggy blond on each arm?

I can't imagine being a fan of the teams of an institution that I disliked or that I thought had failed me.

And though I had a professor or two I didn't care for, I never even remotely thought that they didn't care about educating undergraduates.

I didn't do Stanford right and I could have gotten a lot more out of it and the classroom experience, but that has little to do with my being loyal to the school.  It was very important to me, and I learned a good deal from going there, but much of what I got out of it was outside of a particularly sublime classroom experience.

But I am a bit off the normal track.  I really enjoyed the esprit de corps of law school (at a big state school) and that may have been more due to at least a bit more maturity and a lot more focus.

[oman]

I'm startled to hear that some CardBoard posters didn't have a good classroom experience at Stanford. I certainly did. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be here.

Maybe you would be in Paris?  Or in Vegas with a leggy blond on each arm?

I can't imagine being a fan of the teams of an institution that I disliked or that I thought had failed me.

And though I had a professor or two I didn't care for, I never even remotely thought that they didn't care about educating undergraduates.

I didn't do Stanford right and I could have gotten a lot more out of it and the classroom experience, but that has little to do with my being loyal to the school.  It was very important to me, and I learned a good deal from going there, but much of what I got out of it was outside of a particularly sublime classroom experience.

But I am a bit off the normal track.  I really enjoyed the esprit de corps of law school (at a big state school) and that may have been more due to at least a bit more maturity and a lot more focus.

[M T]

[A bit off-topic.  Certainly no pot-shots here at a football player taking online courses.]

I went through very good public schools K-12, then to a prestigious scientific school for a BS, then to a private, pretty good school for a year of grad school, and then to a good (in my field) public school to finish my PhD.  I've had bad and great teachers at all (except the 1 year school).  Some good ones were very influential upon my development;  probably some of the bad ones were also influential for roads not taken. 

Don't we all have stories like the new faculty member I had that never faced the class but spent his whole time writing (math) on a blackboard as he talked to that board?  (I suppose I should say this freshman, advanced class had whittled down to just two students by the time he took over in the third quarter.)  Or the professor who just read from his text book?  Or the professor who changed the grading methodology just before the final.  But on the other hand, I had a few really good professors, who were interested in & involved in their undergrads.  Grad school was different, in a positive fashion.

I haven't taken any of the online classes, but I hope they are more than just SITN (Stanford Instructional TV Network) produced for the masses.

From my current viewpoint, far into my career, I don't think I would count being able to take a class in my pajamas as an important advantage of an online class, but fitting it into my schedule (both daily, and across a year) would be.  Being able to sample a class and decide whether it was right for me or not, would be a benefit.  Being able to focus in on a particular section of a class, might be a good thing.  I think businesses should take advantage of this to encourage their employees to stay current on techniques.

But what I'd miss in an online class is the esprit de corps of the students, the group momentum keeping us on task, the competition amongst students, and the benefit of someone else asking a question I hadn't yet realized I had.

Being in the computer science field, I know people who are doing these kind of classes at Stanford, across the nation, and across the world.  I believe creating these online classes is the new form of writing textbooks.  The author is creating a course of eduction & populating the content.

Maybe a year ago, I had a good discussion with a colleague about the effect of online courses to the big businesses we call "universities".  If we don't need to bring the students to the professor, what happens to the concept of a campus?  Campuses aren't dead, but they may be scaled back.  For one thing, there are laboratory facilities that you don't have for student use spread around in rural areas.  There are areas of study (performance arts, athletics) that require the students to congregate to an instructor.  But maybe community colleges can provide much of that.  For a field such as computer science, there is less need for a campus. 

So will traditional universities have less relevance?  Will a traditional college education also lose relevance as students can concentrate on, say, quantum information theory straight out of high school?  Maybe.

Proper evaluation of courses with thousands of students seems beyond what we know how to do.  One thing that a central authority can provide is validation and evaluation of the student's performance on a course or set of courses.  This involves more than just online testing.  Students would still want  the access to the best courses, as a Stanford might provide, and the recognition of the world of the quality of a degree from a school like Stanford.  For Stanford's part, in order to protect its reputation and tuition source, the school would still want to ensure that its students get a quality education, and are awarded grades and a degree based on the quality of the student's mastering of the subject matter. 

We're still in a transitional stage, but I expect schools will eventually provide as much care for the quality (including assurances about evaluation (no cheating)) of education via online courses as they do for their classrooms now.  I think if Andy Luck, Jr. chooses Stanford and takes online courses, they will be quality courses, and his performance in that class will be properly evaluated.


P.S., the experiences at my undergraduate school that bring back the best memories were athletics.  That's where I still have some friendships.  But, like a boot camp, I think that school probably helped me prepare for my later career, but not as directly as one might expect.

PPS, jacketree, I happen to know Maxine Turner (for her Civil War navy research), but I haven't seen her for a decade or so.  I'm curious what book you were referring to.

[M T]

[A bit off-topic.  Certainly no pot-shots here at a football player taking online courses.]

I went through very good public schools K-12, then to a prestigious scientific school for a BS, then to a private, pretty good school for a year of grad school, and then to a good (in my field) public school to finish my PhD.  I've had bad and great teachers at all (except the 1 year school).  Some good ones were very influential upon my development;  probably some of the bad ones were also influential for roads not taken. 

Don't we all have stories like the new faculty member I had that never faced the class but spent his whole time writing (math) on a blackboard as he talked to that board?  (I suppose I should say this freshman, advanced class had whittled down to just two students by the time he took over in the third quarter.)  Or the professor who just read from his text book?  Or the professor who changed the grading methodology just before the final.  But on the other hand, I had a few really good professors, who were interested in & involved in their undergrads.  Grad school was different, in a positive fashion.

I haven't taken any of the online classes, but I hope they are more than just SITN (Stanford Instructional TV Network) produced for the masses.

From my current viewpoint, far into my career, I don't think I would count being able to take a class in my pajamas as an important advantage of an online class, but fitting it into my schedule (both daily, and across a year) would be.  Being able to sample a class and decide whether it was right for me or not, would be a benefit.  Being able to focus in on a particular section of a class, might be a good thing.  I think businesses should take advantage of this to encourage their employees to stay current on techniques.

But what I'd miss in an online class is the esprit de corps of the students, the group momentum keeping us on task, the competition amongst students, and the benefit of someone else asking a question I hadn't yet realized I had.

Being in the computer science field, I know people who are doing these kind of classes at Stanford, across the nation, and across the world.  I believe creating these online classes is the new form of writing textbooks.  The author is creating a course of eduction & populating the content.

Maybe a year ago, I had a good discussion with a colleague about the effect of online courses to the big businesses we call "universities".  If we don't need to bring the students to the professor, what happens to the concept of a campus?  Campuses aren't dead, but they may be scaled back.  For one thing, there are laboratory facilities that you don't have for student use spread around in rural areas.  There are areas of study (performance arts, athletics) that require the students to congregate to an instructor.  But maybe community colleges can provide much of that.  For a field such as computer science, there is less need for a campus. 

So will traditional universities have less relevance?  Will a traditional college education also lose relevance as students can concentrate on, say, quantum information theory straight out of high school?  Maybe.

Proper evaluation of courses with thousands of students seems beyond what we know how to do.  One thing that a central authority can provide is validation and evaluation of the student's performance on a course or set of courses.  This involves more than just online testing.  Students would still want  the access to the best courses, as a Stanford might provide, and the recognition of the world of the quality of a degree from a school like Stanford.  For Stanford's part, in order to protect its reputation and tuition source, the school would still want to ensure that its students get a quality education, and are awarded grades and a degree based on the quality of the student's mastering of the subject matter. 

We're still in a transitional stage, but I expect schools will eventually provide as much care for the quality (including assurances about evaluation (no cheating)) of education via online courses as they do for their classrooms now.  I think if Andy Luck, Jr. chooses Stanford and takes online courses, they will be quality courses, and his performance in that class will be properly evaluated.


P.S., the experiences at my undergraduate school that bring back the best memories were athletics.  That's where I still have some friendships.  But, like a boot camp, I think that school probably helped me prepare for my later career, but not as directly as one might expect.

PPS, jacketree, I happen to know Maxine Turner (for her Civil War navy research), but I haven't seen her for a decade or so.  I'm curious what book you were referring to.

[Bruce Wang]

I had a great experience at Stanford and I think the place made me, not just more knowledgeable, but smarter if standardized tests are to be believed.  I scored higher on my graduate school exams than on my SATs.  Every professor or instructor commanded my respect.  I only had trouble with a multivariable calculus class taught by a graduate student with a Slavic accent.  From then on, I stuck to speakers of the three languages I know best: Mandarin, English, and Asian-accented English.

Contrast that to my business school experience, where it was obvious that the professors were more interested in the real money makers: board seats, consulting gigs, book publishing, and executive education.  The MBA program was just a loss leader.  This group of clowns crawled all over Enron, writing cases left and right.  Not a single one of them realized what was going on.  It took a Fortune magazine writer to finally uncover the fraud.  The professor I hated most taught Competition & Strategy, and this guy allegedly had the highest IQ on the faculty, having been a mathematician before.  When we did a case on AOL, this clown went on a soliloquy of how Steve Case was one of the all time great business geniuses.  Jeff Skilling of Enron and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco both visited our class, and boy did this prof lay it on think.  Calling each "among the greatest business geniuses of all time."

There were a couple exceptions.  Bob Kaplan, who taught accounting.  A wise man, who made a dry subject come alive and make us realize its importance.  Clay Christensen was my other favorite.  He had a parting message about life and career, a cautionary tale of his classmates that is the single most important thing I learned at business school.  His claim to fame, the theory of disruptive innovation, is one of the breakthrough ideas in business scholarship.  Then again when he was asked to opine about the launch of what would become the single most lucrative product of all time: the iPhone.  He said his theory predicted failure.

[Bruce Wang]

I had a great experience at Stanford and I think the place made me, not just more knowledgeable, but smarter if standardized tests are to be believed.  I scored higher on my graduate school exams than on my SATs.  Every professor or instructor commanded my respect.  I only had trouble with a multivariable calculus class taught by a graduate student with a Slavic accent.  From then on, I stuck to speakers of the three languages I know best: Mandarin, English, and Asian-accented English.

Contrast that to my business school experience, where it was obvious that the professors were more interested in the real money makers: board seats, consulting gigs, book publishing, and executive education.  The MBA program was just a loss leader.  This group of clowns crawled all over Enron, writing cases left and right.  Not a single one of them realized what was going on.  It took a Fortune magazine writer to finally uncover the fraud.  The professor I hated most taught Competition & Strategy, and this guy allegedly had the highest IQ on the faculty, having been a mathematician before.  When we did a case on AOL, this clown went on a soliloquy of how Steve Case was one of the all time great business geniuses.  Jeff Skilling of Enron and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco both visited our class, and boy did this prof lay it on think.  Calling each "among the greatest business geniuses of all time."

There were a couple exceptions.  Bob Kaplan, who taught accounting.  A wise man, who made a dry subject come alive and make us realize its importance.  Clay Christensen was my other favorite.  He had a parting message about life and career, a cautionary tale of his classmates that is the single most important thing I learned at business school.  His claim to fame, the theory of disruptive innovation, is one of the breakthrough ideas in business scholarship.  Then again when he was asked to opine about the launch of what would become the single most lucrative product of all time: the iPhone.  He said his theory predicted failure.

[washingtonismoney]

I used to work for Christensen. I was several degrees separated on the org chart. Very smart guy, obviously.

[washingtonismoney]

I used to work for Christensen. I was several degrees separated on the org chart. Very smart guy, obviously.

[Bruce Wang]

I was one of his better students so he would always kind of remember me.  The problem is that he always remembers me as being Korean (which is what he wanted to believe because that's where he served his mission).

WIM, you know that a few years ago he had a stroke, cancer, and a heart attack all within a span of 3 years.  I saw him at reunion last year and he looks, sounds, and talks great.  Very inspiring.  What's weird is alot of my other classmates disliked him and his class, and me, the cynical one, am the one that admires him and count his very popular class as my favorite.

Most of the other professors didn't appreciate my disruptive sense of humor and irreverant attitude.  And my grades reflected that. I had a tendency to steer the discussion off their lesson plans or point out when some executive wasn't wearing clothes.

[Bruce Wang]

I was one of his better students so he would always kind of remember me.  The problem is that he always remembers me as being Korean (which is what he wanted to believe because that's where he served his mission).

WIM, you know that a few years ago he had a stroke, cancer, and a heart attack all within a span of 3 years.  I saw him at reunion last year and he looks, sounds, and talks great.  Very inspiring.  What's weird is alot of my other classmates disliked him and his class, and me, the cynical one, am the one that admires him and count his very popular class as my favorite.

Most of the other professors didn't appreciate my disruptive sense of humor and irreverant attitude.  And my grades reflected that. I had a tendency to steer the discussion off their lesson plans or point out when some executive wasn't wearing clothes.

[oman]

I wouldn't be here

Meaning, the CardBoard.

Oh.  I thought it might be an existential riff on the long lasting effects of Zimbardo's breathy Psych 101 class....

[oman]

I wouldn't be here

Meaning, the CardBoard.

Oh.  I thought it might be an existential riff on the long lasting effects of Zimbardo's breathy Psych 101 class....

[jacketree]

MT,

Technical Writing, A Practical Approach (1984)

I don't remember much from that class other than I hated it and was lucky to pull a B.  Still don't understand the index.

[jacketree]

MT,

Technical Writing, A Practical Approach (1984)

I don't remember much from that class other than I hated it and was lucky to pull a B.  Still don't understand the index.