The title could be misread as indicating online tuition is not worth the cost generally, which is a different matter. The article is actually making the fair p

The title could be misread as indicating online tuition is not worth the cost generally, which is a different matter. The article is actually making the fair point that students paying for IRL classes are being ill-served by online replacements with no discount. It mis-steps though in generalising to making claims more generally about online tuition; a physical university (say) panicked by lockdown into rush-providing online replacements for normal service is hardly likely to be able to match the quality of service of (decent) institutions that specialise in online learning.