"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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
You don't have to be wealthy to attend college and study poetry or other liberal arts. I went to my state university with no financial help from my parents, just federal loans. I ate plain rice many days and pay $300 bucks a month on the loans, but I did it and I wouldn't trade it for the world.
Maybe 3/4 of it is from just liberal arts. My degree is in philosophy with concentrations in peace studies and religious studies. As much as I loved the experience, it was certainly not easily monetizable. The remaining 1/4 is from taking computer science classes after struggling to find interesting work with a philosophy degree. I love the structured nature of coding, but the world isn't always so black and white. Liberal arts teaches you to explore and analyze the fuzzy, murky, gray areas.
I think because of your educated background you vastly overestimate the number of people that are taught algebra well in college. Even the people that did take real algebra sometimes don't cover all the content necessary for a strong base.
You also overestimate the amount of socratic questioning that goes in college, even at the top ones. Socratic questioning doesn't exist around 80% of the engineering classes at my school (UIUC), and we're ranked 1-5 in basically every engineering field. The advanced math here is pretty much the same, although I think our math department is only around average. The point being, the lack of socratic questioning in the classroom isn't a disqualifier for a beneficial education. Sometimes just presenting the material and giving someone a problem set is the right thing to do. The benefits from socratic questioning can be achieved elsewhere. Hacking on an open source project, posting in online forums, or speaking with professors, for example.
All of that being said, I'm not convinced of the benefits of this online system. The only way I could see it being even remotely useful is if most participants transfer to a public institution of decent caliber after taking basic general education classes.
"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").
So, funny story. My friend just started at the local community college yesterday. He isn't very good at math, so they placed him in a below-level math class.
They learned about number lines today. Oh and also the difference between "greater than" and "less than".
I guess you think the University of Maryland College Park is a scam school too? The MATH 115 Precalculus course I took there actually covered slightly less material than my Algebra II/Trig course I had taken several years earlier in HS.
If that class counted toward a math major, then yes. At Rutgers, while those classes exist, they are there to prep you for requirements, but don't count for anything on their own.
Because I had been out of school several years working, I had nearly flunked the course in HS, and I needed the review. For that matter I have been gradually working through another precalculus text recently for a review, it has again been too long since I have actually used much of it.
The "College Algebra" [1] covers what high-school curriculum covered in either sophomore or junior year
College math should go back over high school math for the first 6 month or so, because chance are you where taught the math in an incomplete way in high school. The first 6 month or so of math when I was at university was basically starting back from square one and being re-taught everything we thought we already knew. But this time we where taught it correctly with formal proofs and everything put in its right context, and I'd certainly consider that not only college level, but also very useful.
So I'm assuming that you're calling it a scam because they offer very little value in terms of the information provided, and that this high-school math is put off as a college course?
But universities do that now. They offer remedial math and reading, and "Strategies for Student Success," which allows people to retake high school material in a college setting. Because undergrad tuition hours are all charged the same.
Same here. I'm only roughly 30 quarter units from my CS degree ... but I don't live near my old school nor do I have much desire to be on campus a lot.
