BYU Prof. Says University Classrooms Will Be "Irrelevant" By 2020

dragoncortez writes "According to this Deseret News article, University classrooms will be obsolete by 2020. BYU professor David Wiley envisions a world where students listen to lectures on iPods, and those lectures are also available online to everyone anywhere for free. Course materials are shared between universities, science labs are virtual, and digital textbooks are free. He says, 'Higher education doesn't reflect the life that students are living ... today's colleges are typically tethered, isolated, generic, and closed.' In the world according to Wiley, universities would still make money, because they have a marketable commodity: to get college credits and a diploma, you'd have to be a paying customer. Wiley helped start Flat World Knowledge, which creates peer-reviewed textbooks that can be downloaded for free, or bought as paperbacks for $30."

Sure it will.

[Oligonicella (659917)]

Right after the paperless office is perfected.

Re:Sure it will.

[garcia (6573)]

Right after the paperless office is perfected.

Umm, whatever.

Anyway, with the rise in online education, including charter schools (secondary) that are nearly all online, people are pushing their dollars towards institutions that aren't all brick and mortar. There are a few colleges that are all online and many of the brick and mortar schools are moving towards a format where blended courses (part online, part in-classroom) are the norm.

Education is at least partially funded by the students themselves and the state governments that are well known to run their "businesses" poorly. By cutting down on capital costs and increasing the reach of the classrooms to students that are not within driving distance or don't have the time to work full time and take courses on the college's schedule, institutions with online components (or even totally online) will slowly become the norm.

Why is this such a difficult thing for people to understand? While I enjoyed my physical college experience as an undergraduate, I could not possibly see myself going back to a brick and mortar institution for an advanced degree. The time and dollars necessary as well as the loss in income just wouldn't permit that to happen. Working in higher education for nearly a decade has taught me that I am not the only one. In fact, people that think like you do are way in the minority these days.

Re:Sure it will.

[anonymousbob22 (1320281)]

It seems to me that online degrees do not garner anywhere near the same amount of credibility that is given to a traditional degree. As a current engineering undergrad that has taken some online courses in high school, I can imagine using online learning to supplement classroom education, but it certainly cannot replace it. Labs and hands on learning require physical presence.
Also, by learning online, you're missing out on a lot of networking opportunities that you'd otherwise have with professors and other students. You can get to know professors over the internet, but it can't replace face to face conversation.

Re:Sure it will.

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

I agree, but I would emphasise the Networking Thing, A LOT. Example: Get a degree in CS in say, 1982. So, you learned to be a wiz at COBOL, BASIC, PASCAL, and C. Great. Now, no one uses COBOL or PASCAL as much as they used to, but that's not the point - you upgrade your skills as you go.

However: you remember your buddy from English class. He got you in touch with some people at a party at his place. You end up marrying one of these people.

Years later, you run into the buddy from English, and he says "Cool - i remember that - that was an awesome party. Do you know someone who can manage a group?" And you volunteer yourself, and the next thing you know, you have a new job.

OR, you SUCK ASS at school, but your parents are rich and they send you to the best, and you join a frat and make lots of connections, and after all the booze you can drink, you sit your retarded self down and get elected president.

It's like that. I would submit that the CONNECTIONS you make in university are just as important as the skills you learn and the ideas you are exposed to.

RS

Re:University of Mom's Basement

[trongey (21550)]

You shouldn't give credence to someone with a degree from the University of Mom's Basement. Nor should you give credence to someone with a degree from anywhere else. ...
Personally, I kind of look down on people who stay in school. ...

So what you're saying is that you were never quite able to finish that degree.

Re:University of Mom's Basement

[thrawn_aj (1073100)]

College isn't just for the lazy, but also for the mediocre ... and anyone who intends to get into research.

Would mod you up if I had any points left. I think you have the right idea. I'm in research and I don't think any amount of "seeing the real world" would have helped train me in the rigor that my physical science profession requires (12-14hrs a day 6-7 days a week of enjoyable work is rarer than rare in the so-called "real world". Besides, in this day and age, people who think academic work (again: in the hard sciences) is bookworm material are out of their freaking mind. Running a lab (or even being partly responsible for one - as a lowly grad student) requires a scary breadth and depth in your skill set (I like to think of it as having to be "jack of all trades and master of a few", to turn that hoary old cliche on its head :P)

In my experience, people who tout 'real-world' experience are usually masters of resume-padding and self-delusion (not necessarily referring to GP :P). This is ESPECIALLY true in professions that don't deal with tangible end-products (this doesn't include software :P - to me that is tangible).

The only things I DON'T have to deal with (that the real world has aplenty) is boredom with repetitive tasks that a monkey could perform and dealing with assholes (imagine how many abrasive idiots a customer service rep has to deal with). If that's the real world, you can have it. Life is too short to WILLFULLY embrace such madness :P and then further, to brag about it as so many people are wont to do. Celebs are the worst at this - just because a famous actor or basketball player or a self-made millionaire "made it" in the real world doesn't mean that everyone can or should drop out of school and have silly adventures just so they have good stories to tell at parties :P. Prodigies are usually sensible enough to know when their accomplishments are due to their special skills and when they are simply due to lots of hard work (and then again, sometimes they aren't and give out advice that would lead average people to drop out of high school/college like lemmings off a cliff - in pursuit of that indefinable ... coolness is the only word for it ... associated with successful people.

Besides, that leads me to another thing that tfa missed entirely: you can't do research "at a distance". And only a "real-worlder" would believe that research is the domicile of grad students and postdocs and professors. These days, more and more undergrads participate to a greater extent than ever in research (without necessarily staying in academia afterward) so that brick and mortar universities are gaining MORE relevance in the hard sciences.

Disclaimer: please don't give me counterexamples OUTSIDE the hard sciences - I have nothing to say about that. I've stated my domain of interest (for this post) very clearly. A final observation: as society gets ever more technical, the BASIC level of competence that a potential employee needs (in a field that is at least a little complex) simply becomes too deep to be tested for at the interview level. In essence, a college degree (in theory) attests to THIS basic competence. Now, you may well argue (sometimes justly) whether this is satisfied in practice. I don't disagree. But that is not a reason to throw the entire thing away and start "going with our gut" every time we want to hire someone. That only works in cheap novels and sappy movies :P.

Re:Sure it will.

[theIsovist (1348209)]

You ignore the benifit gained by being on campus with the professors and the students. With online classes, you do cut down on costs, but at the cost of human interaction. Your lessons become canned scripts, instead of lessons (hopefully) tailored to each class. You also lose the student culture, which is a huge part of college education. I cannot tell you how much I learned working with students in other fields, and the only reason we interacted is because we were in the same building together. Not only that, but it tempered my social skills, so that when I reached the working world, I understood how to interact with others.

Re:Sure it will.

[edwardd (127355)]

"and those lectures are also available online to everyone anywhere for free. Course materials are shared between universities, science labs are virtual, and digital textbooks are free."

See, here's where the problem is. A college is a business, just like any other. They not only make money from the tuition, they make money on what they sell in the school book store.

Even if this happens (which is very possible) it doesn't mean a free education. The material would be free, but you'll still pay steep prices for tuition. That's how it is today. I'm taking online courses, and the college does not discriminate in pricing; online & in class courses cost the same.

Re:Sure it will.

[QuantumRiff (120817)]

I worked on a comitee to study distance learning for a group of 2 year colleges.. Several of the larger schools had this dream, about a person living alone on a mountaintop with an internet connection being able to get educated. (and the school getting state funding for providing that)..

But realistically, you can study books all you want, but you will not truly understand anatomy until you actually cut into a cadaver. Many people can't learn Calculus in a book, and need a class, along with discussion with their teachers to grasp it. It is currently impossible to have any kind of "lab" class online. You can't even order some of the chemicals the chemistry lab has, without the goverment coming to check out if your the next unabomber... I guess in theory you could get a liberal arts degree, but there are only so many waitress positions available. ;)

Not to mention the "working well with others" and the social interaction you get in person. The learning to put up with the guy next to you that clicks a pen all day, since in the real world, your going to have that guy in the next cube over..

Re:Sure it will.

[YouWantFriesWithThat (1123591)]

you will not truly understand anatomy until you actually cut into a cadaver

this is very true, however there is still no reason that i need to be on the campus to study cadavers. we need to get back to the roots of anatomy and the entire medical profession...and don't they have graveyards pretty much everywhere?

Re:Sure it will.

[backwardMechanic (959818)]

Why is this such a difficult thing for people to understand?

Because I'm a scientist. Students need to spend time outside of lectures, in the labs. It's where they learn the point of all the stuff taught in lectures - it's where we teach the craft. I enjoy giving my students something to calculate, and then measure - I try to choose something that is really difficult to calculate accurately. Sometimes the 'edge effects' dominate, and it's just quicker/more reliable to measure. A good scientist will spot those, but it only comes with practice. Tracking down the causes of those 'edge effects' takes a lot of years experience. Something you really don't get over the internet.

Re:Sure it will.

[garcia (6573)]

Much like the paperless office never showing up, the claim that University classrooms will be irrelevant by 2020 is likely wrong.

I think you may be confusing "irrelevant" with "non-existent".

Brick and mortar schools will continue to exist. In fact, they will likely exist just as they do now. Thing is that with secondary enrollment dropping and competition with foreign institutions on the rise schools will need to kowtow to the needs of the student rather than the other way around. I see it as a very similar argument to the RIAA/MPAA deal. Students don't want to pay for an education as well as housing and food costs when there are alternatives that allow them not to.

As I mentioned above, I have worked in higher ed for a long time. I have done the brick and mortar and online side of things. At the last institution I worked for we had very few online courses and even fewer that were applicable to any degree track we offered. You would not believe how many people would call up and say, "what do you mean you don't have any online coursework?" So at this point the brick and mortars are working their asses off (sometimes under mandate by the state government as it is in MN) to offer tons more online coursework.

The biggest, nearly untapped, market in higher education is the adult learner. As I stated I don't know of many adult learners who have the flexibility in their lives to go back to a brick and mortar school to get a degree. But as more and more people learn the advantages of attending an online institution, the relevance of a brick and mortar education will diminish and the rise of online education will continue to rise just as it has with every other piece of the world (music, books, news, etc, etc).

Re:Sure it will.

[WCguru42 (1268530)]

If some teenager takes the SAT and gets a good score in 7th or 8th grade. Could they possibly get into college?

I actually know someone who pulled a 1550 (out of 1600) when he was in eight grade. He asked our school's counselor if he could use that score to get into college and got a pretty quick, "No!" The fact is, SATs are just stupid tests that don't tell you much about somebody. If you manage to get a great score, good for you, but if you can't back that up with good grades in coursework then it's pretty much moot.

Why Pay for a Degree

[Manhigh (148034)]

If everyone in the world has access to the information then why bother paying for the degree?

As long as I can prove my understanding of the knowledge then why should I pay a particular university to vouch for me?

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[Burkin (1534829)]

Because an HR drone will discard your resume because you don't have a degree?

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[pwizard2 (920421)]

A degree isn't everything. All it does is prove you took a certain number of units at some university, but it is no guarantee that you actually learned anything other than how to pass the exams. I feel as though anyone who has the skills for a job should at least get an interview whether they have a degree or not. The longer you have been out of college, the less important the degree becomes anyway. (past experience takes precedent over everything else)

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[Absentminded-Artist (560582)]

A degree isn't everything. All it does is prove you took a certain number of units at some universityâ¦

You're absolutely correct. I couldn't agree with you more. However, it still doesn't change the fact that degrees are used to filter out applicants. If you're able to get the jobs and experience without a degree that look good on a resume then more power to you, but not having the degree will make that a harder task, as well as affect your pay scale.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[epee1221 (873140)]

it is no guarantee that you actually learned anything other than how to pass the exams

Which is still more than can be guaranteed about the guy with no degree

The longer you have been out of college, the less important the degree becomes anyway. (past experience takes precedent over everything else)

When you're looking for your first job, OTOH, you have no past work experience, and if you don't get a first job, you'll never have any past work experience.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[Egdiroh (1086111)]

If everyone in the world has access to the information then why bother paying for the degree? As long as I can prove my understanding of the knowledge then why should I pay a particular university to vouch for me?

By that reasoning most certification programs should be a thing of the past.

The difference between cert and univ

[DeadDecoy (877617)]

I find the difference between the two, certification programs and universities, is that for the former you're required to remember a body facts (which may or may not change) and in the latter you're required to understand the material and apply it to new situations. The difference is subtle but important. Having a certification informs your employer that you are a replaceable cog; that you have the exact criteria to do the job, no more no less. A university education (at least at the higher levels) would tell the employer that you have some body of knowledge but also the capacity above and beyond the minimum. This would allow them to invest in a partner rather than a replaceable cog.

Now my views on this are probably limited, but that is my impression of what the two types of programs offer. Particularly from seeing all of the TV programs which advertise 'Get your degree in x-months to get a high paying job'. It all seems focused on teaching you the 'what' of learning instead of the 'how'. Ah but, maybe some ITT Tech graduate will prove me wrong.

Re:

[ezelkow1 (693205)]

This may work for some degrees, but not the majority of engineering degrees. You really need the hands on training to understand the theory you learn in most of your classes. Doing this on your own is very hard mainly because the average person would not have access to all the resources. I.E. for computer engineering having access to the multi-thousand dollar programs to do chip synthesis, vhdl design, and fpga testing. Having access to logic analyzers and all the previous knowledge of professors and gr

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[DancesWithBlowTorch (809750)]

As long as I can prove my understanding of the knowledge then why should I pay a particular university to vouch for me?

How do prove your understanding? Now, if only there was some sort of system to examine your understanding and award degrees...

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[Kell Bengal (711123)]

It's quality control, plain and simple. Universities have a big incentive to ensure that their graduates live up to expectations.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[RenHoek (101570)]

1) Because having a teacher explaining things to you can be a lot easier then trying to absorb it from a book

2) The internet is great, but some of the information is damn inaccurate. You would presume a university to make sure that what it teaches is correct and up-to-date. (Caveat emptor)

3) While a manager can grill applicants to see if they really know everything what they need to know, it's a whole lot more efficient to have "RHCE" or "MSCE" etc. in your resume.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[AstrumPreliator (708436)]

Actually university isn't so much about learning information (although you do learn a lot), it's more about learning how to learn. My room mate is a sophomore, whereas I graduate in a few weeks. I've noticed her coursework is very "Learn this, here's how to do X, now go do Y which is nearly identical to X." My coursework on the other hand is "Do Y, you're expected to learn how to do it." That little piece of paper doesn't say you know everything, it just says you know how to and are willing to learn.

At least that's what I've gathered from my time at university.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[C10H14N2 (640033)]

It also proves beyond a doubt that you could withstand an average length of association requiring the constant navigation of byzantine and plainly absurd, arbitrary and obstructing policies and procedures involving intensely egomaniacal petty infighting sadists and their droves of attendant sycophants competing for favor all the while being forced into insane and conflicting schedules designed explicitly to prevent you from accomplishing anything, yet degree in hand, you've proven that somehow you did and still had the composure to not get arrested at your commencement in a cathartic act of domestic terrorism.

Your average high-school dropout realizes this is insane and simply wanders off in frustration, but someone with a degree has been highly conditioned to see it as acceptable, normal human behavior...which, sadly, it is.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[johnsonav (1098915)]

If everyone in the world has access to the information then why bother paying for the degree?

Education != Information.

Just because I have a good portion of the world's information at my fingertips, doesn't mean that I know how to access, correlate, digest, or comprehend it. That's what college is for; it's not just rote memorization of facts.

As long as I can prove my understanding of the knowledge then why should I pay a particular university to vouch for me?

The degree is supposed to be the proof of your understanding. A equally comprehensive test would take just as long, and cost just as much.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[UncleTogie (1004853)]

Interesting idea, but leaves the deaf folks out in the cold.

I should know. Went to a class Saturday where the videos weren't subtitled. Fairly useless to me, but I muddled through.

WITH subtitling, it might have some niche applications in distance education but I just can't see the brick and mortars going for this for all their students.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[Java Pimp (98454)]

I bought my degree from the same people I buy my V1agr4.

Re:Why Pay for a Degree

[robthebloke (1308483)]

Why pray tell would anyone want a degree? The simple answer is that you can learn far quicker if you can ask someone for help. That help may be the lecturer (who you'd hope is an expert), or it may be the 50 or so peers in your year group. I'd agree that the piece of paper at the end is largely irrelevant (aside from resumes), however the amount of knowledge you acquire along the way is far greater than attempting to go it alone

Education is not just a case of having the material available to you. Education is, and always will be, a two way process. The lecturer delivers a lecture, the students ask questions, the lecturer answers said questions, and as a result the lecturer may change/modify/update his material to better reflect the needs of his/her students. I used to lecture a few years ago, and the students have a tendancy to keep you on your toes, and as a result you are always refining and improving your materials.

If you remove the classroom and interaction from the equation, the lecturer can't push the student (academically), and the students can't push the lecturer to improve. After a few years without a classroom you'll have a stagnant department, in a stagnant university, taught by irrelevant lectures, and the final graduates will be largely ignored in the real world.

Sure there are ways in which new technology can help deliver teaching materials in new ways, but it can't replace real physical interaction.

My guess is that Prof David Wiley is approaching retirement, has a final salary pension, and is spouting any old drivel in order to form a committee to boost his responsibilities, and therefore earnings, and therefore pension pot. In my experience, that's normally the reason for crackpots spouting hugely flawed ideas.

Classroom interaction is valuable

[77Punker (673758)]

I don't know what kind of classes he's teaching, but when I was in school asking questions and having some sort of discussion as part of the lecture was just as important as the textbook.

Hearing perspectives and having those perspectives challenged and evaluated by your professors and fellow students is an integral component of the college experience. I doubt listening to iPod lectures would be nearly as useful.

Giving out information for free is a great idea, but the electronic media can't replace human interaction.

Re:

[qbzzt (11136)]

Electronic media can't replace human interaction. It can, however, intermediate it. If you were in Austin, TX I could have told you that in person. But even if you're not, I can still say it.

The classroom discussions will probably be replaced by blogs, chats, etc.

Re:Classroom interaction is valuable

[MindlessAutomata (1282944)]

Hearing perspectives and having those perspectives challenged and evaluated by your professors and fellow students is an integral component of the college experience.

"What? You didn't support Obama last election? Get out of my classroom, you crypto-fascist son of a bitch!"

Re:Classroom interaction is valuable

[eidosabi (857463)]

He actually teaches very active courses, such as Introduction to Open Education - http://open.byu.edu/ipt692r-wiley/syllabus/ [byu.edu].

On the other hand, the course is a massively multiplayer role-playing game in which students select a character class, develop specialized expertise, complete a series of individual quests, join a Guild, and work with members of their Guild to accomplish quests requiring a greater breadth of skills than any one student can develop during the course.

Re:Classroom interaction is valuable

[cvd6262 (180823)]

I've taken a class from him. You can sign up to follow his open learning seminar via his blog and wiki. Though his lectures are only on blipTV, he does read everyone's blog and will respond.

I'm also a professor and I find blog-based discussion to be far superior to face-to-face. A few topics require the immediacy of being in person, but many many more conversations are best when each party has the time to think between submitting responses.

However, the headline is taken WAY out of context. This is what he said:

"If universities can't find the will to innovate and adapt to changes in the world around them (what's happening in the economy, affordability, the impacts of technology and openness, etc.)... universities will be irrelevant by 2020."

Cited from his blog [opencontent.org]

Re:Classroom interaction is valuable

[Bigjeff5 (1143585)]

I go to a small tech school, who's primary programs are IT and Medical Coding, and most all the labs are virtual. For the IT stuff they do have actual Cisco hardware to play with, but all the MS servers, etc were run on VM's and such, as well as most of the Cisco labs.

Anatomy and physics classes were done via simulations on the computers. This is fine for anything short of becoming an actual nurse or doctor, or physicist, none of which were even close to being thought about being offered by the school.

There are a very large number of programs that can be offered 100% remotely, without requiring physical labs or being physically in the room with the proffessor. I know a guy who got his advanced math degree over the internet, his class used collaberation software to hold classes and there was plenty of interaction. In fact, in that kind of environment people are a lot more likely to speak up than in a classroom with people watching.

I think it's foolish to think ALL degrees will be even possible online, let alone that they will replace brick-and-mortar schools. There are too many degrees that absolutely require a physical presence. However, there are a heck of a lot of degrees that really don't require a physical presence, and those may well be offered online-only at some point. I think 11 years is a little hopeful though.

Completely Agree

[squizzi (1180089)]

All of my classes use Blackboard or Moodle, I barely take paper tests anymore (all online) .. and I regret buying 3 of my books because all of the text is online. I just finished up Cisco Netacad which had everything online, and am currently taking Redhat Academy. Not to mention, about 2 weeks ago I had a virtual lecture in Second Life! I still think going to class is essential however ... in some cases if I don't at least sit myself down in a class I begin to lose track and miss out on some of the more convenient information.

Untrue

[LuYu (519260)]

Books and lectures are going to be digitised, but the one thing we truly need teachers and professors for will not change: Answering questions. Everybody understands information in their own way, and therefore, it takes a human being to pick up where the books and lectures leave off.

Unfortunately, most college professors do not interact with students. Lectures were made obsolete by the invention of the book thousands of years ago, but still today we have professors lecturing from yellowed notes.

I hope technology will finally force them to change their ways, but I doubt it will.

Re:Untrue

[Fallingcow (213461)]

Unfortunately, most college professors do not interact with students. Lectures were made obsolete by the invention of the book thousands of years ago, but still today we have professors lecturing from yellowed notes.

Oh, god, that was the worst. Bonus fail points if they turned the chapter in to a powerpoint presentation, then said nothing other than what was on the powerpoint slides. Then they'd require attendance, but be surprised that no-one was bothering to do the reading.

Re:Untrue

[tastiles (466054)]

Unfortunately, at most universities, you'd be right, professors do not interact with students and there is no "real" communication. But there is already an alternative. Small colleges (less than 5000 students) with no TA's encourage communication and collaboration between undergraduate students and professors. I'm thrilled to be working at one. By far the best part of my day is office hours, working with individual students to better understand class or the textbook.

No replacing human interaction.

[MaXintosh (159753)]

Hadn't we heard this all before? `TV is going to replace lectures.` God knows they probably said the same thing about radio replacing the classroom.
Science labs - biology especially - can't be taught digitally. You need to go out and do. Chemistry is another lab that can't replacedThat Dr. Wiley thinks they can shows more his ignorance of subjects outside his own.
And when it comes to lectures, there's just no substitute for human interaction. I've seen people at both my current institution, and my alma matter offer their entire course on MP3, video, and other media formats. Making a purely un-scientific guess, 95% of students don't use them as a replacement, but as a supplement to lecture. People seem to prefer the face time, and the ability to ask questions.

We're social mammals. Classes are sticking around.

Eh. Maybe.

[D Ninja (825055)]

I sort of agree with what the professor is saying. Already, lectures are available online (including the very awesome, Hulu-like site, Academic Earth [academicearth.org]), and the use of iTunes to distribute lectures is already taking place.

Despite the usefulness of these technologies, I only think these things expand the reach of the classroom, but I definitely don't think that classrooms are going anywhere anytime soon. The use of websites and iTunes to reach people is no real difference than what books have done for a very long time. The people who are going to take time to watch the videos would have read the books.

Additionally, I *highly* disagree with the idea that "today's colleges are typically tethered, isolated, generic, and closed." I went to an engineering university, and the amount of technical stuff going on there was absolutely awesome. All you had to do was attend one of the many seminars, working groups, or even a classroom to see amazing work that students were doing. Being around other students also spurred my own ideas towards various projects.

Last of all, I'd argue that the teaching received in the classrooms really is very little about the college experience. Sure, someone may be able to "learn" a lot about physics from a podcast, but he or she is going to have little real-world experience. This, to me, was the most valuable experience I received from my college career.

Basically, I think these technologies will help reach more people, but they aren't going to make the current world obsolete.

But if there are no classrooms....

[khendron (225184)]

...where will I sleep?

What you learn in class is less than half of it...

[TinBromide (921574)]

When will people learn that you go to college to prepare for life, not just a job or career. You go to learn how to be self sufficient, to go to bed so you're not dead for classes, to show up, and generally learn to be an adult. College is an environment where a lot of people fail at that at first, but most, by the time they graduate, are capable of living on their own and holding some sort of job. College isn't just basic engineering or english or math, its basic life. If their parents can afford it, kids need to be out on their own in a forgiving environment like a dorm or college community where they do their own laundry and feed themselves.

On the other side, merely showing up to classes, paying attention, and doing homework is another large part of being an adult. Meetings and work do not happen "whenever you get to it", I'd be sad to see classes go by the wayside if only because what you learn outside and around the class is just as vital in the long run as what you learn in class.

Re:What you learn in class is less than half of it

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

Have you actually been to college? In college I learned how to procrastinate, how to pull all-nighters and still manage to take a test the next day, and how to avoid classes that I deemed unnecessary. As for learning self sufficiency, I lived in a dorm where food was prepared for me and bathrooms were cleaned for me.

The most important thing I did learn was how to teach myself, because most of my professors weren't there to teach and weren't much help. This valuable lesson has helped me greatly in the real world, because nobody is going to hold my hand in the corporate world either. Everything else I learned in college, I've had to unlearn.

Networking?

[svendsen (1029716)]

Some good points in the article don't get me wrong. Right now I am going back for my 2nd master's degree. Being a little wiser now then my first time around I know one of the most important things (besides knowledge) is networking especially in this economy.

Seeing a prof. face to face or going for a few beers after class helps build a strong network one can leverage.

I'm not sure the pure online experience will allow for such strong networking. I know a few people who have done the pure online degrees (Univ. of Phoenix) when I ask them about their class mates, networking, etc. pretty much the answer I have received was there was none (or very little).

So it will be interesting to see how that aspect plays out.

Not until real virtual reality tech is developed

[Max Romantschuk (132276)]

Nothing beats human interaction. Anyone can listen/watch a lecture recording, but participation requires genuine human interaction.

The only thing that can really provide that is VR tech so good it fools the brains that it's real. Our understanding of how the senses really work is nowhere near there yet.

My Professor had a Similar Idea...

[hal2814 (725639)]

I once had a profession with a similar idea. He thinks that you should go to the University, buy all the required textbooks, and show up 4 years later to get your degree. One student asked him, "How will they know if you really read the books?" The professor replied, "They don't care now."

Re:Not just information.

[Hatta (162192)]

Colleges and universities don't just provide information.

They also provide physical proximity to classmates of the opposite sex.

Re:He's Associat Prof of Instructional Psych and T

[pays-vert (1182777)]

I don't get it - what would be a "respectable title" in order to comment on the future of instructional technology? Something other than a PhD and tenured position in Instructional Psychology and Technology?