3 ms·

> I think of all of the parts of the environment (other students, 1:1 time with professors, research opportunities, labs, lectures, random events, extracurricul

> 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.
begemotz 6y ago
you use "value" without ever defining it nor how that "value" is greater when in person compared to online. This also assumes that salaries are only dictated by the "value" produced- which I don't think stands up to analysis. Nonetheless, the reason why institutions are biased towards face-to-face is because 1) without face-to-face, there is no need for room and board- which is a significant portion of revenue. 2) Support service contracts - such as dining/cafeteria services - may stipulate that institutions still are financial obligated even if they are not generating the typical revenue from the services. There are other examples, but as I said in a previous post -operating budgets of tuition dependent colleges/universities are generated with the assumption of physical bodies being present - and all the peripheral income that generates. Most schools would not be able to survive without that income.

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.

begemotz 6y ago

you use "value" without ever defining it nor how that "value" is greater when in person compared to online. This also assumes that salaries are only dictated by the "value" produced- which I don't think stands up to analysis. Nonetheless, the reason why institutions are biased towards face-to-face is because 1) without face-to-face, there is no need for room and board- which is a significant portion of revenue. 2) Support service contracts - such as dining/cafeteria services - may stipulate that institutions still are financial obligated even if they are not generating the typical revenue from the services. There are other examples, but as I said in a previous post -operating budgets of tuition dependent colleges/universities are generated with the assumption of physical bodies being present - and all the peripheral income that generates. Most schools would not be able to survive without that income.