4 ms·

"Classes are only a fraction of the in-person university experience in the USA today." It's ironic isn't it. What would the cost of purely attending classes an

"Classes are only a fraction of the in-person university experience in the USA today." It's ironic isn't it. What would the cost of purely attending classes and exams be? $2,000 or $3,000 a year? But no, if citizens wish to educate and certify themselves (from a reputable institution I might add), they must purchase the full package including all the bells and whistles that come with societies, events, parties, support, guidance councillors on the side. It's really time to introduce a "I just want to learn and sit for exams" package for those unable or unwilling to pay for the extras.

kube-system 6y ago
Those institutions absolutely exist, but no organization is under any obligation to cater to a pedagogical style they do not subscribe to. Simply go to a school that is the right fit for what you're looking for. Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?
- andrew_eit 6y ago
  "Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?" This is exactly the issue and I am in no way doubting that these approaches are more effective. However, at some point, a decision was made to choose between a fundamental trade-off of "maximizing the effectiveness of the experience" and "minimizing the barriers to entry". I have heard of discussions in Germany (using as an example because I know what's going on) around whether the top tier universities (there is no real top-tier, they are all very good, but some have made a particular name for themselves) should charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience. But there are strong arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level. At the end of the day, if you are lucky enough to end up at a brilliant institution, you will find a way to cope and get the most out of the experience (maybe you must rely on less support, and activities and events are more in the hands of self-organising students). That, in my view, is a better scenario than having potential students/classmates not be able to engage with each other due to means that are (often but not always) outside of their control.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    > charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience. > arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level. These ideas are not incompatible. You can both raise prices and ensure that financial means are not a barrier to entry. Simply take into account the financial means of the applicant. Most of the top schools in the US already do this and are tuition-free for students with lower (or even middle) income. i.e.: https://studentloanhero.com/featured/free-college-tuition-prestigious-schools/ https://studentloanhero.com/featured/free-college-tuition-pr...

kube-system 6y ago

Those institutions absolutely exist, but no organization is under any obligation to cater to a pedagogical style they do not subscribe to. Simply go to a school that is the right fit for what you're looking for. Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?

andrew_eit 6y ago
"Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?" This is exactly the issue and I am in no way doubting that these approaches are more effective. However, at some point, a decision was made to choose between a fundamental trade-off of "maximizing the effectiveness of the experience" and "minimizing the barriers to entry". I have heard of discussions in Germany (using as an example because I know what's going on) around whether the top tier universities (there is no real top-tier, they are all very good, but some have made a particular name for themselves) should charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience. But there are strong arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level. At the end of the day, if you are lucky enough to end up at a brilliant institution, you will find a way to cope and get the most out of the experience (maybe you must rely on less support, and activities and events are more in the hands of self-organising students). That, in my view, is a better scenario than having potential students/classmates not be able to engage with each other due to means that are (often but not always) outside of their control.
- kube-system 6y ago
  > charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience. > arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level. These ideas are not incompatible. You can both raise prices and ensure that financial means are not a barrier to entry. Simply take into account the financial means of the applicant. Most of the top schools in the US already do this and are tuition-free for students with lower (or even middle) income. i.e.: https://studentloanhero.com/featured/free-college-tuition-prestigious-schools/ https://studentloanhero.com/featured/free-college-tuition-pr...