3 ms·

>> I'm a professor at a US university. The honest answer (at least at the university level) -- probably we don't. >> From what I can tell, there's very little

>> I'm a professor at a US university. The honest answer (at least at the university level) -- probably we don't. >> From what I can tell, there's very little enthusiasm for online education, on the part of either professors or students. This isnt surprising -- you are probably polling people inside the system -- what about the many more people who cant join the system? I'll bet they have a very different opinion. The US educational system, especially graduate education, is a game of money. Even those graduate students who are on grants are only the lucky ones who don't have sufficiently large family obligations to fulfill and can therefore stay on a graduate grant. Think of how many people need to work at their parents' shop, have to take care of a grandparent, sick elderly parents at home, those who are also caring for younger siblings, those w/o sufficient disposable income to sit around at quads sipping lattes. Consider all the people who couldn't pay to play that game. I'm sure they would love an alternative. Also consider the opposite problem -- people with money who do not want to take off two years (without income) to get a graduate degree, or worse, move their families to one of several key cities with top universities. They would also like an alternative that is mostly remote.

1auralynn 6y ago
I think this is correct. Students who thrive in a lecture environment make it to Universities. Professors who are fantastic lecturers get jobs at Universities.
NationalPark 6y ago
Aren't the people inside the system the ones you should be listening to most? You talk about surivivorship bias in university students, but I think it's a lot more likely that the survivorship bias is really, "people who value education". That is, the people currently in traditional university are by and large the majority of the people in whatever hypothetical online next-gen education system you're imagining. I think it's really unlikely there are a whole lot of geniuses for whom school, "just doesn't work". I've met a lot of people who think of themselves like this, and honestly, they're usually just stupid or lazy. High achievers figure out ways to take advantage of the systems that are in place, they don't admit defeat and blame "the system" for their failure.
- TuringNYC 6y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Lets take a simple case I know of personally -- a family with children. A remote graduate program with evening classes works for a lot of people. A program where you need to commute into the city, commute back late at night after group meetings, or change cities all-together is just not practical for all but the wealthiest individuals (those who can afford 18hr nannies). Those who aren't wealthy enough to do that aren't stupid or lazy, they are just lacking wealth. Consider also that hundreds of millions of people live within un-commuteable distance to a university. They aren't stupid or lazy -- they are just unlucky -- they happened to grow up or settle in a particular area.

1auralynn 6y ago

I think this is correct. Students who thrive in a lecture environment make it to Universities. Professors who are fantastic lecturers get jobs at Universities.

NationalPark 6y ago

Aren't the people inside the system the ones you should be listening to most? You talk about surivivorship bias in university students, but I think it's a lot more likely that the survivorship bias is really, "people who value education". That is, the people currently in traditional university are by and large the majority of the people in whatever hypothetical online next-gen education system you're imagining. I think it's really unlikely there are a whole lot of geniuses for whom school, "just doesn't work". I've met a lot of people who think of themselves like this, and honestly, they're usually just stupid or lazy. High achievers figure out ways to take advantage of the systems that are in place, they don't admit defeat and blame "the system" for their failure.

TuringNYC 6y ago
I respectfully disagree. Lets take a simple case I know of personally -- a family with children. A remote graduate program with evening classes works for a lot of people. A program where you need to commute into the city, commute back late at night after group meetings, or change cities all-together is just not practical for all but the wealthiest individuals (those who can afford 18hr nannies). Those who aren't wealthy enough to do that aren't stupid or lazy, they are just lacking wealth. Consider also that hundreds of millions of people live within un-commuteable distance to a university. They aren't stupid or lazy -- they are just unlucky -- they happened to grow up or settle in a particular area.