
College, all you can learn, $99/month - sethg
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/college_for_99_a_month.php
======
rms
The essential hack:

>So he devised a clever way under the accreditation wall, brokering deals
whereby a handful of accredited traditional and for-profit institutions agreed
to become “partner colleges” that would allow students to transfer in
StraighterLine courses for credit. After the credits were accepted—laundered,
a cynic might say—students could theoretically transfer them anywhere else in
the higher education system. The partner colleges stood to benefit from the
deal as well. They all had their own online endeavors, but those required
hefty marketing investments to keep new students enrolling. The schools
reasoned that the StraighterLine relationship would introduce them to
potential new students, with some StraighterLine customers sticking around to
take their more advanced (and expensive) courses.

~~~
hristov
Right, so we get more corruption that further invalidates my degree for which
I actually had to do a lot of very difficult actual work. As if accrediting
places like University of Phoenix and IDT wasn't enough.

~~~
SamAtt
I don't know what University you went to but having known people who "partied
their way through the Ivy league" (by their own admission) I feel pretty
confident that people can get through any 4 year university without working
all that hard. So even if you did work really hard your degree was probably
"invalidated" by those people far before this came along.

Beyond that I'd present the question that's already been asked: What makes you
think people who get degrees online aren't working hard? Did you study 18
hours a day like the woman in the article? I suspect not.

~~~
hristov
Well, not my college and not my degree. For my degree you had to work your ass
off and there was no way around that. My major started with more than 200
people and about thirty something of us graduated. In some of the early
classes professors would fail half the class without batting an eyelid.

And it was not considered a super elite school or anything. It was just an
engineering degree in a school where the faculty took the subject seriously.
So, I am very sure nobody in my major partied through it, in fact I was
probably the biggest partier of them all but i still had to work my ass off
for the difficult classes.

Of course there always are majors that can be partied through, we all know the
bs majors out there.

Well it is possible that people with on-line degrees are in fact working hard,
but it is very hard to believe. What is their incentive to fail people that do
not learn the subject? What is their incentive to even teach the subject
properly? For reputable universities this usually comes down to the personal
integrity of the professor. They have academic reputations to defend and make
sure that their students know what their supposed to know or don't pass. For
on-line colleges the "professor" is a random badly paid employee, and the
student is a customer that will stop paying if he/she gets pissed off.

The woman in the article studied 18 hours a day because the on-line school
offered a flat fee per month so she just decided to take as many classes as
possible to get her money's worth.

~~~
trapper
You know, the best programmers/engineers I have known did almost _no_ course
work. The material was so easy they breezed through, while reading papers of
interest or doing extra research projects with faculty.

If you are truly interested in your field, you should rarely cover new
material in undergraduate courses.

------
tokenadult
"StraighterLine is the brainchild of a man named Burck Smith, an Internet
entrepreneur bent on altering the DNA of higher education as we have known it
for the better part of 500 years. Rather than students being tethered to ivy-
covered quads or an anonymous commuter campus, Smith envisions a world where
they can seamlessly assemble credits and degrees from multiple online
providers, each specializing in certain subjects and--most importantly--
fiercely competing on price. Smith himself may be the person who
revolutionizes the university, or he may not be. But someone with the means
and vision to fundamentally reorder the way students experience and pay for
higher education is bound to emerge."

This is the opportunity for Web-based services hackers in this industry. There
are huge amounts of spending devoted to "education" (currently defined mostly
as school attendance), and anything that can make that massive spending more
efficient has got to be good for society, and good for the early promoters of
the new efficiencies.

Especially anything that reduces the expense of higher education should be
appealing as student debt continues to pile up.

[http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405297020473180...](http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204731804574388682129316614-lMyQjAxMDA5MDAwMzEwNDMyWj.html)

~~~
gojomo
StraighterLine sounds as close as you can get to David Gelernter's "Tracks and
Clusters" concept within the framework of traditional courses and credits. See
Gelernter at:

<http://edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html#gelernter>

------
jerf
A couple days ago there was some complaints that technology hasn't actually
changed anyone's lives, and I made the claim that while we may be paused now
while we consolidate some things, the changes are coming. Here's one for you
now: In twenty years (by the time my son would be graduating), the centuries-
old idea of college will probably be gone.

I've been thinking about the implications of this article for the past couple
of hours (since my previous posts), and I think it could very easily cut far
deeper than people realize. Once we have ~$100/month college education, why
wouldn't an advanced high schooler opt for that instead of standard high
school classes as we see them now? And once the mental block of "schooling
must take place in a school" is gotten past, what's going to prevent that from
going ever-lower in age? Why wouldn't even a middle-schooler prefer to learn
math at their own pace instead of locked to all of his or her classmates?

And... once "school" consists to some significant degree of distance learning,
what is the purpose of clocking in at a school building? Now, there are
answers to that question (two-working-parent households using it for child
care, for instance), but it's going to radically rewrite the school social
contract.

If this sort of thing even remotely succeeds it'll start rewriting more than
just the college social contract, it's going to extend way down.

(Of course today it's just introductory courses, but that is very, very
correctable over the timespan I'm looking at here. This is a game-changing
price point even if they triple it.)

~~~
netsp
I think the interesting point to look at is the 'traditional' non-university
institutions teaching university-like courses (Nursing, IT, etc.). They tend
to move faster then anyone else because of size and their economy is more
straightforward in most places. They provide education & accreditation in
exchange for tuition. For this reason.

They are moving towards self paced learning via the kinds of 'modules
discussed here. They still have buildings and teachers (standing around or
answering questions). But the distinction between this and online schooling is
much harder to make.

------
bcl
Interesting. But the classes are all fairly low level. I need someplace where
I can finish a BSCS for $99 a month :)

~~~
andreyf
"Low-level"? More like _scam_. The "College Algebra" [1] covers what high-
school curriculum covered in either sophomore or junior year (depending on
whether they were in the "AP track"). Claiming that "learning to graph linear,
quadratic, absolute value, and piecewise-defined functions, and solve and
graph exponential and logarithmic equations" is "college math" is plain false.

So not only are the classes "low-level" (because, at least in my Math courses,
we didn't get very far before high-bandwidth back-and-forth interaction with
the professor becomes essential to the process), but it _completely misses the
point of college for most people who attend it_. No online course could have
replaced the socratic questioning my PolySci professor gave us (he told us he
modeled the teaching after his professor who would use it to make students
cry, but toned it down a bit), or the vigorous debate with a Elizabethan
poetry professor about whether the themes in Shakespeare were comprable to
modern soap operas, or the engagement in political and academic groups.

Sure, it might replace crappy community colleges or degrees for middle aged
people seeking to improve their career, but it won't do much for the 17 year
olds who are looking to form an identity and foothold in the world.

(OTOH, the undergrad CS program at Rutgers could mostly have been replaced
with online or self-study. I think that's because the undergrad CS program is
so pressured into training tech workers that they can't be nearly as selective
as the Math dept).

1\. <http://www.straighterline.com/courses/descriptions/algebra/>

~~~
asdlfj2sd33
I think if you try hard enough you can get a degree from a "real", heck even
"established" college with stunningly little math.

And indeed personal interaction with a professor is essential to get to a
certain level,But if you can not afford that, then the much worse alternative,
is still INFINITELY better then no college.

And not a single one of my professors at my real and established university
used the Socratic method of teaching, not even once.

Then again I didn't take any polysci courses, just cs, math, stat, etc.

And the ability to pay a lot of money just to get the opportunity to discuss
Elizabethan poetry with someone else comes from wealth. Not form talent, or
hard work, but the wealth of your family.

Apologies if you actually come from a poor family and made it to college on
scholarships and tips from waiting tables.

But the vast majority of the time, people who discuss Elizabethan poetry in
college don't really need college as an essential economic opportunity opener.

In short, you are not the target demographic of that $99 college.

~~~
netsp
Every time an article shows up on the (fascinating) topic someone pops up and
starts swinging. "Personal growth. Face to face interaction with brilliant
professors. Discuss with like minded talented youths. Completely misses the
point of college... and on"

The reality is that no one would even consider paying private universtity
equivalent fees to achieve those things in any other case. They are
peripheral. Like air conditioning in a car they are inseparable from a good
university.

You can't ignore the fact that _"They’re also in the information business in a
time when technology is driving down the cost of selling information to
record, destabilising lows."_

In any case, assume andreyf is correct and the peripherals make all the
difference. That is still a big deal. Universities may need to compete
explicitly on that advantage, without the pretence of a better education. That
world would look very different. Perhaps as this article and discussion on HN
suggest, online is more suitable for basic courses while advanced courses
still need a building. Maybe this is on to a decent idea: $99 per month online
study of all basic courses, 1-2 year. 1-2 years in a building for advanced
courses.

~~~
andreyf
_Universities may need to compete explicitly on that advantage, without the
pretence of a better education._

But that _is_ what makes a better education - a well-rounded view of the world
and a deep understanding of the material. That's the distinction between
"University education" and "community college education". At least in high-
level math classes, the "read the book and solve the exercises" is only the
first part of a lesson. Understanding the meaning of the concepts, the
epistemological implications, and discussing how it related to other areas of
math is the true value-add.

~~~
asdlfj2sd33
_a well-rounded view of the world and a deep understanding of the material_

The deepest level of understanding may only be achievable through peer and
superior face to face interaction. But a deep understanding could be within
the reach of an extraordinary autodidact. Especially if the tuition fees are
out of his or her reach.

A well-rounded view of the world on the other hand, is more social
stratification then education. Or it's education only as much as certain
knowledge is essential to truly belong in certain strata of society.

------
puredemo
Four full courses in 2 months... amazing. I wonder how many of these credits
are transferable?

Edit: It appears there are currently nine courses that can be taken for
transfer credit. <http://www.straighterline.com/courses/>

~~~
anigbrowl
EDIT: accreditation via some partners, varying flexibility:
[http://www.straighterline.com/about/partners/partner-
college...](http://www.straighterline.com/about/partners/partner-college-
details.cfm)

Personally, I don't care too much - this is very interesting to me. I have
thought about completing my education for years but been put of by the time
commitment and cost. For me it's about gaining academic and self-disciplinary
skills, not so much about the letters. I am bad with long-term horizons, so
the ability to focus on the goal rather than the time commitment - and save
money while doing so - is huge to me.

Thanks, sethg.

------
rick888
College is as much about the experience as it is the education. It is a time
for many kids to get out on their own and learn to be independent.

It is also one of the last chances for you to be around many people your own
age (and one of the last chances you will have to be around many single
men/women).

Once you start working, it's different. It's more difficult to meet people and
you have an entire set of new responsibilities.

Although I don't think it will completely replace college, it might work well
for people already working (and don't have the time to actually sit in class
for a few hours a day).

~~~
jerf
Yes, that's the talking point we'll be hearing from the colleges.

I have news for you. There's _no way in hell_ people are going to value that
"experience" to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year when a
credible alternative emerges. And you see, that's the real problem. People
don't spend money by deciding whether a thing is "good" or "bad". People
decide whether something is _the best thing they can do with their money_.
There is no way blowing that much money on an expensive college that produces
the same degree as the much cheaper alternative is going to be a popular
choice. (Might I add that the online college will also let you go at your own
pace, and is even quite likely to have _superior_ courses, once all the tech
and experience is in place.) Arguing that college is "good" won't win. You
have to establish it as the _best_ choice. There's no way it will meet that
bar.

You can berate them all you like for making choices you feel are wrong, but
it's hopeless. Live-in colleges are doomed.... long term, anyhow.

Other things will spring up to fill the social void. They won't be the same.
There will be a chaotic transition period. They'll be worse in some ways and
better in others, and old-fogeys will bemoan the ways in which they are worse
without seeing (or comprehending) the better ones. All terribly predictable.
All but unstoppable.

~~~
unalone
A year ago I'd have agreed with you. I just changed colleges and spent a short
gig at Princeton, and now I wouldn't doubt that what we think of as colleges
today will remain in some shape.

The college experience is about independence and about _sharing_ independence.
It's not about the classes so much as it's about what comes out of those
classes - what thoughts, what productions, etc. I just had my first video
production class. I'm certain that the various technical lessons are ones that
I could get for cheaper, and the various artistic lessons I'll skim over. What
I _wouldn't_ get is the feeling of community and collaboration and
togetherness, the almost-fantasy of being alive and alone and at the same time
together with everybody else. I'd also probably be hard-pressed to get the
high-level gear that I get to use.

Granted, I'm in a unique position now because I'm at an art school rather than
a generic lib-arts college. My student body is all geared towards certain
things more than others. The result is that I'm in a community that feels
uniquely welcoming of me, and it's a physical community, meaning that I'm
living in the midst of these people, and it's a personal community, meaning
I'm making, hopefully, lifetime connections and profoundly changing my life
and my worldview. I get to live in the middle of extremely over-the-top
people, extremely ambitious people who are ambitious in a way you can't find
online. (There are two big tenants of ambition that I identify: One sort you
find online right here; the other sort might be impossible to move gracefully
online; in any event, it hasn't been done yet.)

I'm in the same position learning-wise that I was last year: All my classes
feel beneath me, and in the areas of my expertise I'm quite a ways ahead of
most of my peers. So last year I was considering dropping out rather than
transferring and paying a shitton of cash - If I'm not learning, I reckoned,
surely I could survive for a decade on the same amount of money and learn on
my own?

Yes, _but_ I'd lose a few instantly material things. I'd lose access to the
career drive that my university provides: I'm expected to leave here with a
portfolio good enough to land me anywhere I want to go, and the university
will insist on my making it as good as possible. I'll lose the creme-de-la-
creme of the professors here: Right now I get tutelage under Emmy Award-
winners and studio executives and all sorts of people whose experience is much
more useful to me when delivered in person over hours-long conversations.
Finally, I'll lose the access that I have now to thousands of talented
beautiful people looking for a way to spend an evening. Two days ago on a lark
a kid and I finagled our way into an interview with a bestselling author and a
movie star. That's quite an experience, and it's one that wouldn't have
happened without the particular synergy of the guy I worked with to get the
interview (I wouldn't have had the ambition to secure my way in, he wouldn't
have known what-all to ask about). When you're with a unique group, there's a
pulse that colleges are specifically designed to attract. Not all of them do
this, and I don't know which ones do and which don't (I have my doubt about
the Ivies, actually), but the ones that do will find themselves prized as
always.

Now, what I _do_ think will happen is that live-in colleges will change their
path. We're going to see education happen faster and more in-depth at younger
and younger ages. I suspect colleges will respond by specializing more and
more, which is a _good_ thing - it will create stronger and stronger
communities of people. College sizes will shrink, as large schools become more
difficult to keep interesting. College may also not be viewed as an essential
part of finding employment, which is also good - it will strengthen the value
of the experience for the people that choose to go.

I don't see why colleges have to beat every other option. That's like the
argument that one form of entertainment will rule supreme over others, that
books will be killed by plays will be killed my movies will be killed by video
games, with all the other little anal arguments in between. For college to
survive, all we need are a few dozen thousand people to decide that the
fantastic experience of college is worth quite a lot of money, and I suspect
it won't be hard to find them. There are enough people who've had real college
experiences (now myself included) that the core ideas that made the experience
so good will continue for a long time to come.

~~~
jerf
The problem with that idea is that it takes more than just people waving money
to make something happen; it also has to be economical. There has to be a
solution to the "money flow in > money flow out" problem. And due to the
enormous fixed costs a college campus implies, if demand drops far enough, you
may not be able to make the numbers work for much more than the very, very
highest demand people. And that says _niche market_ , which is going to be a
big transition away from where we are now.

There's probably some convenient economic term to describe this.

Ultimately, you sort of missed the point of my message, which is that it isn't
enough to merely establish that these are good or desirable qualities of a
college. You have to establish that there's enough people who think it's the
_best_ choice to make it economical. Colleges have to beat every other option
from the point of view of enough people that they can turn a profit because
colleges are in a free market, and will very soon be facing stiff competition
from a new competitor that will undercut their prices by _orders of magnitude_
, while simultaneously providing services that will be in many ways superior,
probably superior enough to make up for the ways in which they are inferior.

A few art colleges will survive and a few music colleges will survive, and I
tend to agree the Ivy league will survive (but they will bleed), but at the
end, nobody is going to look around at the landscape and say that "colleges
have survived". It's going to be a bloodbath.

Try to cut out the emotional overtones and just imagine a market where someone
comes out with a competitive product that is _orders of magnitude_ cheaper,
while being fairly substitutable for the original product. Technically, there
are still people who make shoes for horses, and they come out to your house to
do it. They aren't gone. But they aren't a significant industrial force,
either. That's where colleges are heading; just enough left over that you
might be able to come up to me in 2030 and say "Look, Harvard's still there!
It's all OK.", but you wouldn't be fooling anyone.

------
adityakothadiya
Too bad that there was no URL of StraighterLine on the first page of article.
In a quick glance, it was hard to find which site/service they are talking
about. Here is it for your convenience - <http://StraighterLine.com>

~~~
Estragon
Oh, yeah, that was tough. It was only the top hit in google for the first
thing I tried, "straigherline" (note the typo.)

------
asdlfj2sd33
If there's is a higher education bubble, then this is what might burst it. We
desperately need cut throat price competition between colleges.

~~~
steveplace
I don't think it will be this; rather, it will be the free and open
accessibility to knowledge and discussion via MIT OCW, Stanford lecture
youtube channels, etc.

~~~
psawaya
As great as those are, they still don't provide a replacement for student
interactions with a professor and/or tutoring, which are things a site like
this could conceivably provide for a monthly fee.

------
johnnybgoode
This was a pretty good article. It's long, but if you read the whole thing,
you'll see that the biggest challenge these newer institutions face is the
accreditation problem.

The hack they used to get around that _was_ clever, but as we could've
guessed, it didn't last forever. I believe the only long-term solution to this
is to encourage people to bypass accreditation entirely. Yes, many jobs still
have legal barriers (i.e., you can't be hired unless you have a government-
approved credential), but for those that don't, the barriers are only
psychological. I am working now to help eradicate these barriers. But whatever
I do personally, I am confident that the situation will change in the future.

(Also see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645523>)

------
tedunangst
Damn, I read the whole thing to find out what happened to the woman and her
four courses that would cost "roughly the gross domestic product of a small
Central American nation at an elite private university", but it doesn't say.
So she spent $200, learned some maths, and then... What happened?

~~~
christopherolah
My impression was that it was a developing story: they only told it to the
point that events had progressed to. It mentioned her getting laid off, so
this seems likely.

------
rsingel
But, but, isn't part of the point of college to keep 18 to 22 year olds out of
the job market? And perhaps more to the point, the real function of college is
supposed to be creating citizens, not just employees.

That said, it's pretty clever. Even smarter would be finding a way to accredit
classes that use Berkeley and MIT's online course material, including their
YouTube lectures. Add on a virtual TA and you could get to $49 a month.

------
wsprague
I think the debates about online education confuse the different roles that
educational institutions serve:

1\. Impart knowledge. And when it comes to teaching grammar or differential
equations, online education is probably a more effective delivery agent than
classrooms ... sorry guys.

2\. Train people in face-to-face social skills. Much important work is done in
an educational environment by teaching people how to behave in their later
professional careers. This goes FAR beyond technical skill, into things like
how to make appropriate jokes, how to drop names, how to socialize off work,
how to dress at what occasion, how not to expose the fact that you came from a
poor background, etc, etc. I think high level centralized education is
probably pretty good at this; some of this can be done online, but online
interaction doesn't give you practice at face work.

3\. Grow social networks with a high level of emotional charge. One goes to
Yale largely so that one can become a Yale Alumn and mobilize those networks.
This network building doesn't work without an emotional attachment to the
university, though, and this is probably more easily cultivated when people
are there in person, lose their virginity on campus, go to rituals together,
etc.

4\. Control the flow of people into various levels of the elite. I think there
are a lot more capable people in the world than there are open positions, so
education partly serves to withhold training and entitlement by imposing
fairly arbitrary cutoffs for admission and by making people feel personally
responsible for their prior lack of training (a lack which is generally due to
their bad luck in being born into a less fortunate segment of society). Better
to have unemployed pissed off illiterate peasants than unemployed pissed off
educated folks -- the latter organize and execute revolutions while the former
just break windows and make a lot of noise. This categorizing based on
supposed talent begins at a very young age -- google "Pygmalion effect".
Choking off the flow of talented people who might make trouble will be harder
if education escapes its current stranglehold by the academy.

5\. Provide physical equipment. If you need to provide access to lab equipment
and libraries, it is more efficient to put them in one place and share them.
This is obviously changing rapidly, with central libraries becoming
obsolescent in many ways (not all though -- browsing the shelves is a good
thing and impossible to do in the same way online).

So, if we are discuss the pros and cons of online versus offline education, I
think we should do it broken down more, either my way or some other.

Two more comments -- it is pretty funny to hear professors going on about
cheapening the value of a degree from Fort Whatever in Kansas. And as far as I
am concerned, the sooner the internet bomb goes off in academia, the better.

~~~
billswift
1\. Good, but you definitely don't need college for that.

2\. Potentially useful, but most people can easily absorb this on their own,
and colleges don't (or at least didn't when I was in) actually provide any
help for those who really do have trouble with this.

3, 4. Evil, but conventionally accepted.

5\. Nonsense. Unless you're doing graduate research in science or engineering,
lab and shop equipment is a small fraction of the cost of attending college.

~~~
wsprague
My point wasn't that college is the best way to do numbers 1,2,3, just that it
DOES provide these for better or for worse. If we are going to talk about
alternatives, we need to talk about how college can provide these.

I agree that on #1, online learning is probably better than classroom. I was
just saying that classroom usually provides it _today_.

WRT #2, I disagree that people can easily absorb it on their own, otherwise
there wouldn't be so many lonely socially awkward people in the world. And
yes, if you have real trouble, college won't help. But if you are sort of
graceful when you arrive though, college can help polish that gracefulness
even more, with very real benefits in the real world.

I disagree that #3 is evil. Again, my point is that people need it, so if we
shift away from conventional universities we need to provide it somehow.

I DO agree that #4 is evil. I just wanted to call it like I see it, and
explain some of the resistance to really opening up education.

WRT #5, I wish the OP would refrain from using words like "nonsense", which
seems a little antagonistic. I think my point still holds. Part of my point
though is that efficiency is changing, especially with shifts from print to
electronics.

~~~
billswift
Actually I don't think online learning is better than classroom, I wrote two
blog posts (the more recent is
[http://williambswift.blogspot.com/2009/04/overcoming-bias-
an...](http://williambswift.blogspot.com/2009/04/overcoming-bias-and-learning-
from-www.html) and links to the earlier) claiming that the Web is NOT adequate
for serious study. Books are the thing.

The nonsense was a bit strong, but I have seen this claim over and over, and
equipment suitable for learning is much less expensive than tuition. If you
REALLY want to learn, you can even build large amounts of the equipment
yourself (that is also the ultimate test - Pass/Fail - does it work or not). I
don't know if they still do, but the UMCP had a required physics shop course
where you learned to use machine shop and electronics tools to make
specialized equipment you may need.

~~~
gehant
Your blog posts are comparing surfing the Internet and using Google to
reading/studying textbooks tailored for college courses. You're comparing
Apples and Oranges.

The general Internet is only the access point for serious online education -
the actual teaching happens within private web applications. Furthermore,
online courses or degrees still require the same books, you just might buy
them (for a lot less) off Amazon or Chegg instead of the college bookstore.

------
glen
Great article. Accreditation has to evolve. At www.nixty.com we are working on
a form of open accreditation - or personal accreditation - that
employers/peers can look at to assess a person's competencies. Degrees are
still somewhat valid indicators of a person's knowledge, but their predictive
value is steadily decreasing for a number of "anonymous institutions". What is
needed, instead, is a form of personal accreditation that is based on test
scores, work display (papers the individual has written that others can
download/comment on), resume, and recommendations. We hope that this type of
open accreditation will yield strong results that can help support the current
form of accreditation.

------
I_got_fifty
My college costs $-957/month.

I hate to be so smug, but Scandinavian-socialism really does rule.

~~~
jrmurad
It must be quite an education-system to teach math like that. Elsewhere, one
might be taught that a variable in calculating those costs would be the taxes
paid to fund the college. Maybe you haven't paid much yet but I suspect that
your parents may have and that you will (unless you emigrate soon after
graduation.)

------
jbellis
It's a real shame that the established players can use accreditation so well
to prevent competition.

I briefly taught at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumont_University>, which
used a more expensive hack to handle the accreditation problem: they bought an
existing college. (Neumont is VC-backed; obviously that's not something you
can bootstrap. It's also probably not something a $99/m model can afford
anyway...)

------
robryan
The question is though, If I were to take one of these degrees on this website
and pass it, how would it compare in a perspective employers mind to a 4 year
cs major degree?

~~~
astrec
This specific website? Or just a degree delivered online?

In general, the only thing a CS degree tells me is that you had the fortitude
to complete a CS degree, and perhaps (it's not a given) you might be able to
practically apply some of what you learned.

Things higher up on the list of considerations include experience (side
projects count for graduates), natural ability, hunger, and cultural fit.

Many in our technical team don't have even have a degree and of those that do,
around half are not CS or IS degrees.

------
jlintz
I've found iTunes University to be a great resource for education, top level
schools offering their course material is just great in so many ways. It's
also interesting to see how courses at MIT compared to the same courses I took
at my state university and realizing they are really not that all different.

------
robryan
Another point about online courses, it's would be like working from home as a
one man startup. Unless your very driven, have good support around you or know
friends doing the online courses as well, it could be a very lonely
experience.

------
raheemm
Really, higher ed needs a major overhaul! Straighter liner is a start, but
there needs to be more flexibility, less hyperbole classes and lower cost.

------
clay
This is cool, but I think it's missing something. My startup will address the
something that it's missing. :)

