5 ms·

Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? And that the students should pay the same tuition as before?

Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? And that the students should pay the same tuition as before? Why did we ever have in person classes then if the value is the same? (Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work at all) I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value. I also believe that professors are not even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? Lecturing online vs in person, yes I think there's not a huge difference. From my experience at Tech, I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, and are impacted the least by the move online. Class structures as a whole are impacted, but a professor lecturing into a chalkboard on how to take eigenvalues isn't a better experience than what you can get on youtube today. The value I as a student got wasn't from the lectures, it was from everything else. And you can't provide the everything else anyway. > Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work. Indeed, but that doesn't excuse not trying for the subjects where it can. > I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value, and I don't think that professors are even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries. And I'm saying that the opposite is likely true: the OMSCS program is cheaper tuition wise, but still an enormous cash cow for Georgia Tech. So if you mean value per student, maybe, but that has, again, little to do with the professor, it has to do with the other services the university environment provides. In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases, while the value to charge the student decreases, because the student no longer has access to all of the other valuable things that the university provides that have nothing to do with the professor (everything from the concrete: a world class weightlifting studio to the more nebulous: the ability to interact and network with other students, which is for example a key reason that schools can charge more for their MBA programs, it has little to do with the classes and more to do with the people, the other students, you'll meet).
- glofish 6y ago
  > I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, But you are not getting any of these either! You seem to focus too much on lectures. The learning experience obviously includes all that above. >In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases ok this is so wrong, I don't even know where to start or if it is even worth discussing. Most of the professors there haven't got a clue on how to design an online course. That takes years of practice, a loop of evaluation, enthusiasm and hard work (I know because I developed an online course and it took me five years to get it right). What they produce will be a tedious, unwatchable hourlong expose that will be a burden to follow. Saying that a professor produces even more value online is absurd - perhaps relatively speaking since if students don't get to be there thus compared to nothing, or course, it is a lot. My opinion firmly stands, none of these universities can even hope to pay their professors the same if they teach online. This is why the administration wants the face-to-face so badly, do you honestly think that they have not thought about how insanely badly it makes them look? They know what the letter signers don't, there is no future if students are not there.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > But you are not getting any of these either! You seem to focus too much on lectures. The learning experience obviously includes all that above. I know, that's why I said "And you can't provide the everything else anyway." That has nothing to do with the professor. The professor's value doesn't affect the value one gets from extracurriculars. The professor shouldn't be paid less because the university can't provide extracurriculars, because, under your scheme the professor is still providing the same value. > Saying that a professor produces even more value online is absurd A single professor can, on campus, teach a course of at most ~200 students. Some universities can support more for a few courses due to larger lecture halls, but at Georgia Tech 2-250 is the limit. On the other hand, in an online course the same professor can teach thousands of students. Georgia Tech is the prime example here: the OMSCS program has professors teaching tons of students per professor. > Most of the professors there haven't got a clue on how to design an online course. Indeed, and you'll see that many of the professors are complaining because they weren't given clear timelines. You overestimate the time component required for many subjects, I saw approximately 3 months to convert an existing on campus CS course to online, given the resources (which Tech has), which again, remember this is a university with the resources and experience to provide multiple masters degree programs entirely online, has at least one lab devoted to online education and MOOC research, etc. > My opinion firmly stands, none of these universities can even hope to pay their professors the same if they teach online. Sure, but not because the professor is providing in less value, but because the university is providing less value.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Are you seriously arguing that a professor teaching/working from home will produce the same value? Lecturing online vs in person, yes I think there's not a huge difference. From my experience at Tech, I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, and are impacted the least by the move online. Class structures as a whole are impacted, but a professor lecturing into a chalkboard on how to take eigenvalues isn't a better experience than what you can get on youtube today. The value I as a student got wasn't from the lectures, it was from everything else. And you can't provide the everything else anyway. > Later you also state that there are subjects where it cannot possibly work. Indeed, but that doesn't excuse not trying for the subjects where it can. > I am not saying that online education is useless, just that it produces less value, and I don't think that professors are even remotely open to the idea that this could be reflected in their salaries. And I'm saying that the opposite is likely true: the OMSCS program is cheaper tuition wise, but still an enormous cash cow for Georgia Tech. So if you mean value per student, maybe, but that has, again, little to do with the professor, it has to do with the other services the university environment provides. In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases, while the value to charge the student decreases, because the student no longer has access to all of the other valuable things that the university provides that have nothing to do with the professor (everything from the concrete: a world class weightlifting studio to the more nebulous: the ability to interact and network with other students, which is for example a key reason that schools can charge more for their MBA programs, it has little to do with the classes and more to do with the people, the other students, you'll meet).

glofish 6y ago
> I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurriculars, etc.) lectures brought some of the least academic value, But you are not getting any of these either! You seem to focus too much on lectures. The learning experience obviously includes all that above. >In an online education scheme, the value provided by the professor actually increases ok this is so wrong, I don't even know where to start or if it is even worth discussing. Most of the professors there haven't got a clue on how to design an online course. That takes years of practice, a loop of evaluation, enthusiasm and hard work (I know because I developed an online course and it took me five years to get it right). What they produce will be a tedious, unwatchable hourlong expose that will be a burden to follow. Saying that a professor produces even more value online is absurd - perhaps relatively speaking since if students don't get to be there thus compared to nothing, or course, it is a lot. My opinion firmly stands, none of these universities can even hope to pay their professors the same if they teach online. This is why the administration wants the face-to-face so badly, do you honestly think that they have not thought about how insanely badly it makes them look? They know what the letter signers don't, there is no future if students are not there.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > But you are not getting any of these either! You seem to focus too much on lectures. The learning experience obviously includes all that above. I know, that's why I said "And you can't provide the everything else anyway." That has nothing to do with the professor. The professor's value doesn't affect the value one gets from extracurriculars. The professor shouldn't be paid less because the university can't provide extracurriculars, because, under your scheme the professor is still providing the same value. > Saying that a professor produces even more value online is absurd A single professor can, on campus, teach a course of at most ~200 students. Some universities can support more for a few courses due to larger lecture halls, but at Georgia Tech 2-250 is the limit. On the other hand, in an online course the same professor can teach thousands of students. Georgia Tech is the prime example here: the OMSCS program has professors teaching tons of students per professor. > Most of the professors there haven't got a clue on how to design an online course. Indeed, and you'll see that many of the professors are complaining because they weren't given clear timelines. You overestimate the time component required for many subjects, I saw approximately 3 months to convert an existing on campus CS course to online, given the resources (which Tech has), which again, remember this is a university with the resources and experience to provide multiple masters degree programs entirely online, has at least one lab devoted to online education and MOOC research, etc. > My opinion firmly stands, none of these universities can even hope to pay their professors the same if they teach online. Sure, but not because the professor is providing in less value, but because the university is providing less value.