GE is in mixed company here; the other partners don't have nearly GE's deep pockets or long history. I read this proposal and think of the poor / underserved p

GE is in mixed company here; the other partners don't have nearly GE's deep pockets or long history. I read this proposal and think of the poor / underserved people I know through working in the homework / dropin center at the local public housing project here in MA. A job at the GE turbine plant in Lynn would be a dream come true, and a ticket out of housing (absent layoffs or offshoring). These folks can study online; we have the beginnings of a nice mesh network, and donors for computers. So the pattern might work. A determining factor would be support for the students. Underserved people need encouragement and occasional bureaucratic intervention ("fix that registrar's mistake, please!") to get things done. They typically don't have family members capable of coaching them in such things. But, Northeastern U? Seriously? That's a fine institution with a long history of experiential education. But it's expensive, and many of their students have deep resources (== helicopter parents) making sure they succeed. The young people I work with would be culturally outcompeted at such an institution. I'd much rather have a program like this at a community college. GE certainly could participate. It's good these programs have independent quality measurement. Hopefully they'll measure the qualitative cultural stuff as well as doing stats on test scores. Loans worry me. People shouldn't become debt slaves, especially to pay for experimental programs. I hope there's accountability, in the form of compulsory debt forgiveness, in case the programs don't meet expectations. That accountability needs to lie upon the .edu, the partner org, the QA org, and the government lending agency. All that being said, it's good to try new things.