[Genuine Realist]

Sorry for starting another thread, but the topic of higher education models in the C-19 environment raises some interesting questions on higher education models.

I have long thought that the basic higher education model - matriculate to a four year college, dwell with others, obtain a degree, etc. - is on the verge of collapse, basically because the cost-benefit ratio has gone to hell, and also the skewed intellectual environment. I was superbly educated at Pomona between 1964 and 1968. But it didn't cost a fortune then, $3,000 a year room,board and tuition, and the faculty, though old-style liberal in believing in open dialog, ran the full cultural gamut, from Left to Right. They were great years. But I wonder these days whether the full package is worth it. Covid-19 is going to put this in sharp relief.

So consider this. Before the lockdown, a substantial number of Stanford courses were on-line. Now I believe they all are. (I believe MIT's full catalogue is also on line, but I don't know.) If not, they easily could be. There is no reason why they can't be available to anyone who is prepared to pay an appropriate fee, and they probably are or will be. That's money for jam for Stanford, as the fixed cost is not increased and marginal costs are non existent. It is also possible to test and give credit to anyone who completes the work.

Think about a motivated kid, not necessarily in the US, maybe in Mumbai, or Damascus, or Beijing, who is determined to obtain the benefits of a Stanford education. He or she completes all the relevant coursework, passes the exams, and it is even possible to fold term papers into the equation, with a modest investment in readers and graders. He or she thus stands with exactly the same academic credentials as any matriculate who has resided on the Palo Alto campus. A few years ago, there was a first person account on the Atlantic Monthly of a Harvard grad who did exactly that -  everything online. He met his classmates for the first time at graduation. He'd never set foot on the Cambridge campus.

Which raises a simple, but extremely perplexing question - what the h-ll was the point of the admission process? If courses and coursework are completely available to anyone smart enough and motivated enough to complete them? To anoint a particular group of applicants as the Elect? The Chosen? That doesn't sit too well, does it? I think we begin to grope towards the resentment of elitism and class warfare that fuels so much of the divisiveness in this society.

I enjoyed my four years at Pomona. Bud did I need them? Maybe I would have done better in the Army, or with some part-time employment, while I did the coursework - if I really were that motivated. It's a whole new world, and of course was not available then. It WAS a sort of privilege, though the 'white male' label annoys the hell out of me - sexist and racist. (These days the majority of undergraduates, and the majority of matriculates in the medical and law schools are women, so where the 'male' is I don't know. And the portals are wide open to anybody, if you have the money.)  But definitely a slightly upper middle class privilege. 

In any case, I'm not the only person who's going to register the difference. If a Stanford matriculate is sitting at home doing online coursework, why can't some motivated person in Beijing? What's the difference, other than a suspect label? The Covid-19 shutdown, which scatters the students off campus, brings the issue into sharp focus.

Do I believe in Medicare for All? Not just yet - administratively impossible. But elite education for all? With no branding by an Admissions committee?  Oh, yeah. Why not?

[Genuine Realist]

Sorry for starting another thread, but the topic of higher education models in the C-19 environment raises some interesting questions on higher education models.

I have long thought that the basic higher education model - matriculate to a four year college, dwell with others, obtain a degree, etc. - is on the verge of collapse, basically because the cost-benefit ratio has gone to hell, and also the skewed intellectual environment. I was superbly educated at Pomona between 1964 and 1968. But it didn't cost a fortune then, $3,000 a year room,board and tuition, and the faculty, though old-style liberal in believing in open dialog, ran the full cultural gamut, from Left to Right. They were great years. But I wonder these days whether the full package is worth it. Covid-19 is going to put this in sharp relief.

So consider this. Before the lockdown, a substantial number of Stanford courses were on-line. Now I believe they all are. (I believe MIT's full catalogue is also on line, but I don't know.) If not, they easily could be. There is no reason why they can't be available to anyone who is prepared to pay an appropriate fee, and they probably are or will be. That's money for jam for Stanford, as the fixed cost is not increased and marginal costs are non existent. It is also possible to test and give credit to anyone who completes the work.

Think about a motivated kid, not necessarily in the US, maybe in Mumbai, or Damascus, or Beijing, who is determined to obtain the benefits of a Stanford education. He or she completes all the relevant coursework, passes the exams, and it is even possible to fold term papers into the equation, with a modest investment in readers and graders. He or she thus stands with exactly the same academic credentials as any matriculate who has resided on the Palo Alto campus. A few years ago, there was a first person account on the Atlantic Monthly of a Harvard grad who did exactly that -  everything online. He met his classmates for the first time at graduation. He'd never set foot on the Cambridge campus.

Which raises a simple, but extremely perplexing question - what the h-ll was the point of the admission process? If courses and coursework are completely available to anyone smart enough and motivated enough to complete them? To anoint a particular group of applicants as the Elect? The Chosen? That doesn't sit too well, does it? I think we begin to grope towards the resentment of elitism and class warfare that fuels so much of the divisiveness in this society.

I enjoyed my four years at Pomona. Bud did I need them? Maybe I would have done better in the Army, or with some part-time employment, while I did the coursework - if I really were that motivated. It's a whole new world, and of course was not available then. It WAS a sort of privilege, though the 'white male' label annoys the hell out of me - sexist and racist. (These days the majority of undergraduates, and the majority of matriculates in the medical and law schools are women, so where the 'male' is I don't know. And the portals are wide open to anybody, if you have the money.)  But definitely a slightly upper middle class privilege. 

In any case, I'm not the only person who's going to register the difference. If a Stanford matriculate is sitting at home doing online coursework, why can't some motivated person in Beijing? What's the difference, other than a suspect label? The Covid-19 shutdown, which scatters the students off campus, brings the issue into sharp focus.

Do I believe in Medicare for All? Not just yet - administratively impossible. But elite education for all? With no branding by an Admissions committee?  Oh, yeah. Why not?