> Other than a few actual schools like Georgia Tech with OMSCS which actually seems to be trying to innovate to give degrees online at a fraction of the on-campus cost, they also don't seem to be trying to actually give degrees.
that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost as it 1) reduces the value of their degrees, and 2) reduces their reputation.
Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%. But they don't want to. Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State), they're selling prestige and future opportunities, and the value of that lies in its _scarcity_.
> that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost
That's one big reason for sure.
The other, I suspect (and I'm sure there are more), is that it's also rather difficult to provide the same level of quality of courses to the masses than say select few undergrads.
Some of the best courses I took in my uni (T20) were the upper level electives where it was taught by the professors who cared about the topic, had interesting teaching materials/presentation, readily available support resources (TA's/office hours/department support), and so on.
Also keep in mind - Georgia Tech's program is a master's degree - and these programs don't affront the same level of prestige and opportunities in the same way the other programs do (BS/BA, PhD, MBA, MD, JD).
> it's also rather difficult to provide the same level of quality of courses to the masses than say select few undergrads.
I agree
> master's degree - and these programs don't affront the same level of prestige and opportunities in the same way the other programs do (BS/BA, PhD, MBA, MD, JD).
I'd throw MBA in there too (unless from the top dozen biz schools, Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Booth, Kellogg, Sloan, Haas etc.)
It's also important to see university departments as groups of people who often will end up working together for decades, and therefore leadership will see internal politics everywhere. What does doubling your student body do to said politics? Better to minimize growth and keep people happy than deal with the risks of what happens when you end up with far more staff.
A lot of similar fun is occurring as the all the student body that isn't trust fund babies really wants to study topics that will pay well, which in many universities, might not even have a lot of political weight, or even their own dean. See all the universities where you can end up taking CS classes in 8 different unrelated departments, but where they really, really don't want to admit that 50%+ of the student body is programming, as building a proper umbrella for this, which then has so many students, takes a lot of power away from incumbents.
These universities have turned from "growing our mission of education" (in which, wouldn't you want the largest number of people possible to benefit from some of the best minds in the world who work for you?) to "sustaining our business".
> Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State), they're selling prestige and future opportunities.
Obvious follow up: Are there state universities using these techniques to drive down costs and be more flexible?
Community colleges for sure -- I would argue they have taken up the mantle of truly educating, especially those from lower income brackets, and are free for lower income students in many states. They also have good transfer pathways to a four-year university. It's by far the most affordable way to get a bachelor's degree.
Some flagship state schools (example [0]) offer free tuition for lower income students providing they maintain a certain GPA.
But middle class families have a hard time as they are usually above the threshold for aid, and yet tuition (and housing) is a huge financial burden.
There definitely are state schools that work hard to drive costs down for in-state students.
Florida is weirdly enough a good example as the sunshine state scholars program provides a reasonably approachable way for any student in the state to enter high school with the intent on going to university and graduate with the criteria to get 50%, 75%, or 100% tuition and fees covered under the sunshine state scholars program.
Then you have states like Virginia who have some of the fastest rising costs of attendance in the country and where cost of attendance at state schools (which are generally supposed to be cheaper) actually ends up being comparable or even more than cost of attendance at private universities.
The community college system does a good deal here. As an example in California, students can get a great deal of their undergrad lower division work done at a community college for a fraction of even UC or State university cost (which for instate students is already fairly low).
Community colleges are also where folks would normally turn to for casual the classes they wanted to take but didn’t necessarily want the formalities of the full degree. Online delivery of there helped further but vs MOOCs, CC has geographic and residency restrictions for who can actually study there.
Oregon State has a large offering of online undergrad and grad programs: https://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/. There were 11,430 ecampus students in Fall 2023 [1].
The ecampus tuition (~13K/year) is still substantial compared to the in-person tuition for out-of-state students (~38K/year), and nearly identical to the in-person tuition for in-state students (~14K/year) [2].
The State of New York is offering free tuition at any SUNY school for all students who reside in the state with incomes up to $125,000 for dependent students; $60,000 for married students with no dependents; $30,000 for independent single students with no dependents.
This will make a huge difference in the market for degrees.
> that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost as it 1) reduces the value of their degrees, and 2) reduces their reputation.
Huh? Many selective universities already make their educations free for many undergraduates.
The MOOCs charged money because they failed to solicit donations.
> Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%.
This is true.
> Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State)
The thing is, the best state institutions are operated like there are small elite academies within a larger, public body.
yes, but not their _degrees_, which is what I said. Sure, Harvard can give all of its classes online away for free, why? Because the actual value you get from attending Harvard is not the education. When you go to get a job, company X doesn't care that you "took some classes at Harvard", they do care that you "graduated from Harvard".
that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost as it 1) reduces the value of their degrees, and 2) reduces their reputation.
Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%. But they don't want to. Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State), they're selling prestige and future opportunities, and the value of that lies in its _scarcity_.