It looks like every comment here is picking apart the reasoning of the New York Times editorial kindly submitted here. The editorial includes a paragraph relati

It looks like every comment here is picking apart the reasoning of the New York Times editorial kindly submitted here. The editorial includes a paragraph relating a rather troubling factual assertion: "A five-year study, issued in 2011, tracked 51,000 students enrolled in Washington State community and technical colleges. It found that those who took higher proportions of online courses were less likely to earn degrees or transfer to four-year colleges. The reasons for such failures are well known. Many students, for example, show up at college (or junior college) unprepared to learn, unable to manage time and having failed to master basics like math and English." Taking the statement "Many students, for example, show up at college (or junior college) unprepared to learn" (college-level subjects) at face value, which I will because I have seen multiple sources that report the same phenomenon, let's see if the editorial makes sense. The editorial does NOT say that anyone has done a treatment/control study of taking beginning college students of matched preparation and then having some take online courses by random assignment while others take brick-and-mortar courses by random assignment. It is that kind of study design http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html that would be necessary to blame the online nature of the courses for lack of "success" (completing the course and going on to another course) by the students in the course. If bad preparation of students before they attend college drags down the success rate in college courses (as seems plausible to me), then the policy response is to research better preparation for K-12 students. Fortunately, many researchers are working on that important issue. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/measures-of-effective-teaching-fact-sheet.aspx http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/measures-... But if an online college course makes the difference between a college-age student attempting to take a course versus not attempting the course at all, and is meanwhile less expensive for the taxpayers who subsidize higher education, let's give the online courses some more tries and attempt to refine and improve those. This doesn't have to be an either-or choice. Students who are adults attempt to find college courses while fulfilling their other adult responsibilities, such as earning a living. Sure, let's improve courses for learners at all ages. But let's not reject an entire learning model if it is chosen willingly by some students who may not be able to choose any other.