Online Classes Are Not College


universities have become nests of radical left indoctrination.

online degrees cut costs to students and taxpayers and cut some liberal professors out of a cushy overpaid position.

and goldy doesn't like it.

sounds like a win win win win to us...
I guess the U.S. has pretty much given up on ever hoping to be highly ranked in math, science, engineering, and so forth.

Eventually we'll just be a country of warmongers, entertainers, and prisoners.

Some people think that university faculty occupy cushy over-paid positions. Those people are obviously not university faculty, or they would know that faculty positions are 1) underpaid and 2) extremely difficult and labor intensive. They have their heads up their butts. Just like state legislatures who believe that on-line "degrees" count for something. On-line courses are horrible for students, and burdensome for faculty. And Goldy is right. Taking on-line courses is NOT attending a university.
... first-time freshmen ... more than 60 percent of whom need remedial instruction in math, English or both.

How can any university system be successful with these numbers, regardless of budget?
> Distance learning has its merits and its place. But it is not college. And it is not a comparable replacement for the real thing.

So Goldy what do you think the real thing gives you that distance learning does not? (Says he, having completed a UK distance learning BSc (Hons) in the UK in his 30s as a way to not brood whilst getting divorced). Sure I didn't get drunk every night, sexually harass members of the opposite sex and puke on my bed, instead I learnt how to balance paid work, university work and writing a technical book all at the same time. In the UK the Open University degrees are marked according to the same rules and regulations that the brick and mortar universities are, you have the option to attend weekly group tutorials locally, weekend classes, you're connected online to your groups, your tutors, and so on. Maybe it's because I have one, and because I did it later in life, but it was damned hard work and I'm always cheesed off with people dismissing it.
Real countries invest in Education.

Failing countries don't. But they make more millionaires while 99 percent of their populations lose economic wealth.
Would an online degree look the same on a resume? I wonder whether resumes that said "UW (online)" would get passed over in favor of the real thing.

So much socializing occurs in college. These online kids would probably show up to the office and behave like home-schooled weirdos.

If you still need remedial education and constant help from a professor, you should not be in college. College is not for you. If you do not have the intelligence and drive to succeed independently, you should not be in college, online or otherwise.

You should be in a trade school learning how to be a mechanic, electrician, plumber, etc. The problem is we have just decided that everyone should and can go get a $20,000 degree, and if you do not, you are a failure.

Frankly, you are going to be better off than at least half the people getting a liberal arts degree. Everyone always needs people with actual hands on skills. No one needs another English major; and this is coming from an English major.
They work well for highly skilled, highly motivated students but are potentially disastrous for large numbers of struggling students who lack basic competencies and require remedial education.


There's the problem. Online courses are fine if graduating students weren't struggling. You know, if we did more to help K-12...
@1 people who don't like the conclusions that rational educated people come to always say that. If the right wants its party line to be more represented in our universities then it should start aligning its policies to be more in line with facts.
You seem to think that a college degree is something more than an extra tax on people who want gainful employment.
Godly is correct in terms of the needs for most younger students who are 1) not yet mature adults; 2) do not have other responsibilities; and 3) cannot handle the material without a communal setting that is provided either in class, with friends, or within formal residential or fraternal communities. Outside of this segment (what we think of first when we think of "college") there is a vast population of older, working adults for whom this is entirely appropriate.

You can toss around generalizations and stereotypes about what higher-ed is supposed to look like, but having done both, I've had great experiences both ways.
@4 That's great that the BLS "suggests" that 48% of college grads work a job that doesn't require a degree. I'm happy they're making that suggestion - I really am - because I would think it's very true.

But that has no bearing on whether or not a given employer is going to require a degree, or give hiring preference to applicants with college degrees. Unfortunately, plenty of jobs that don't *theoretically* require a degree *realistically* require one in order to have any hope of getting hired. Reducing the number of graduates doesn't solve that problem.

You're talking into the wind. You'll never convince #4 of the fact that employers require degrees for jobs that *shouldn't* require them.

And it's not just a matter of employers giving hiring preferences to college graduates. There are so many high school graduates who are barely competent in basic learning, a college degree is the bare minimum you need to show employers that you're not a lazy idiot.
What Goldy said is true, but if you need remedial education, then it's cheaper to go to community colleges like the one I've got my associate's degree from : Seattle Central Community College. When I was attending SCCC, I've found that most of the kids who were attending the University of Washington or U-Dub were doing a basic class or two at SCCC.
@1 and @3,
Not to mention in my field professors do a shit load of research, which goes almost entirely to benefit society. So, having a faculty member that is only an instructor (doesn't usually even have a PhD), and not a researcher, removes an important source of usually free (not proprietary) R & D from directly benefiting society.

Listen, I've taken a lot of online graduate classes, especially in math and psychology (I'm a psychophysicist), and I would say the online graduate Capella and American classes I've taken were really hard and comprehensive, exactly what I needed at the time to change my focus of research. However, when I taught an undergrad physics class at U of Phoenix a few years ago, the students (freshmen and sophomores) were essentially verbally and mathematically illiterate. I guess my point is that I would distinguish between only-online schools and sometimes-online regular colleges, and between undergrad and grad classes. Online classes, for the right person, are cheap and less time-consuming than classes where you have to commute somewhere 3 days a week.

Also, hell yes to going TO a brick-and-mortar college when you're young, so you can date and make friends and do drugs and learn some non-academic skills.

I agree with you 100% Goldy. I just wanted to talk about some real-world examples.
@17 the former, sort of, as they won't need receptionists, or call center employees. The most likely path is for reception areas to be staffed by monitors and cameras, and call centers to simply go away (or be routed to prisoners), as they have been doing for years.

It's true that far more people should be going to trade schools. Unfortunately, we don't have either a legitimate trade school system or the willingness to tell some high school kids that this might be a better path.