In the New Yorker.
The top schools, led by Stanford, are now aggressively exploring online education, which they had previously left to the for-profits. This doesn’t mean that they will suddenly start granting degrees online to ten or a hundred times as many students; instead, they are likely to offer a second, cheaper (or even free) tier of education that will only enhance the lifelong value of their traditional, in-residence degrees.
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:45AM
not sure at all about the enhancement of the lifelong value of the traditional programs but I imagine in the MOOCS that teaching students who are choosing to pursue specific subjects on their own time will be a relative pleasure.
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:44AM
I think Lemann has it just right. Schools like Stanford, Harvard and MIT have immense global prestige based on site-specific assets that they cannot replicate elsewhere. Their online initiatives are not “brand extension” to create a new revenue source; the intent is rather to defend their reputational preeminence in a way that provides a public benefit.
May 24th, 2012 at 9:57AM
i like the mooc reference but am not persuaded by his conclusion to whole shebang. he ends with a progressive argument (new yorker–natch!) to the effect that government should subsidize institutions more generously so as to avoid a two-tier model, and that more money will mean the benefits of a liberal education will be spread to all. that is of course the existing (already subsidized) situation, and how is that working out? when you subsidize something you typically get more of what you got before.