The traditional undergraduate model (also, business school) adds almost no value. I know this is a dickish thing to say, but let's look at it honestly. First, t

The traditional undergraduate model (also, business school) adds almost no value. I know this is a dickish thing to say, but let's look at it honestly. First, the top universities admit people who least need to attend them. Most admissions officers will admit that they want the kids who don't need to go to a prestigious college to be successful. Now, that's exactly what they should do-- getting the best students means they get the best teachers and researchers-- but it limits their value-add. They'd add more value (even if it'd be the wrong thing to do) by admitting students who actually need them, not the ones who don't. In general, social transformations (education processes, jobs, mentorship programs) converge on a state where those who can get the resources are those who need them the least. That's not "wrong"; it's just the equilibrium. People want to help those who don't need the help. It's human nature. Now, one can argue that their value-add is inherent in what they do with those talented people once they are in, but if you compare the cost of a four-year degree and what is learned to what would be learned with that money, autonomy, and time, I don't think the yield is better. Give a smart person 4 years of extremely high autonomy, and that person will learn a lot and grow. The high cost (in particular, opportunity cost) of university or college education cancels out what is gained (to society, and the person) by attending. What's exciting about MOOCs is that, by removing the scarcity and gatekeepers and rising market tuitions that lead to a zero-value-add equilibrium, we finally are getting to a point where all of this stuff might genuinely add value to the world. That will be an exciting thing to see.