The cost of an American university education is ridiculously more than its value. It should be crystal clear that most of what you are paying for is the credential, not the education. The first elite university to break up the monolithic credential into an a la carte system of finer-grained credentials, with high standards backed by the reputation of the institution but open to all, regardless of how they learned the material, will change the world of education forever. Each narrow credential will move independently to its true market value (sorry, lit crit professors), people will pay much less by paying only for what they need, yet people who would never go back to get another whole degree will frequently go back for additional narrower credentials over the course of a career. Elite institutions can stay elite by keeping their standards high and may end up making more money than they ever did under today's absurd system.
The article made it clear that MIT was desperate to avoid diluting their own brand equity ("we'll grant certifications using a subsidiary with some other name so there's NO confusion"), but it looks to me as though the industry is heading in the direction I'm talking about one way or another.
This post hits home for me. I joined the education industry a few years ago and learned quickly that to advance, I need a degree. Having never gone to college, and in my thirties, I was discouraged... but, nevertheless, enrolled anyway. Since no one cared what my degree was in, or where it was from, I enrolled in University of Phoenix for an AA in IT. I've got the GI bill to thank for my eventual pay raise (I'm done in 3 weeks) but really, I just spent ~18k on almost no useful knowledge. I learned a few things about academic writing, and forced my way through some upper level algebra which I will likely not use again, but overall, it was truly a waste of time for me. If it wasn't 100% paid for, I would have never completed. I only continued out of stubbornness.
The sort of content that MIT offers is exactly what I would rather have. Task-based learning about subjects that interest me. Generalized learning is a waste of my time and effort. "Professional Certifications" like the A+ or Net+ are highly regarded pieces of paper that prove the holder knows how to read a book and take a test which requires no practical knowledge of the material. If the employment industry can embrace this type of learning, and focus on the candidates abilities instead of resume, open learning could have a very bright future.
I'm in my late 30s and four classes away from my BS in Computer Science. If you find yourself at a career-related impasse again, consider the community college to 4-year school route. Through Pell Grants and employer assistance, it was extremely affordable (18k for an AA seems excessive).
Also, I have found my education to be very useful in my work, both at home and for my employer. Mainly the math though (discrete, linear algebra, and stats). The programming not so much, as I already knew how to program.
I have considered local colleges, but with two small children and a wife that is a social worker, it is very difficult to find classes that fit my schedule. The premium for online schooling is absolutely ridiculous, but it is the price I pay for the convenience. Also, I have no interest in changing careers, so going full-time is not really an option either.
As for learning experience, an AA in IT is about as basic as it gets. I'm a Systems Administrator taking classes like 'Introduction to LAN Technologies.' I had the most fun in my two Web Design classes because that is something I had not tackled previously... though, to be honest, I could have learned everything those two classes taught me in a weekends time on my own.
Thanks! I understand the family thing, my daughter is 15 months old and my wife is currently getting her MBA at the same four year school.
When I was in community college, finding night classes and online classes was easy. Once I switched, I had to take more day classes. Glad I had a flexible employer.
As a Sys Admin, I think certifications are king. I work for a global engineering firm and most of the IT guys here need the MCSE and CISCO stuff.
In the real world, certifications are more desirable for Sys Admins. I work for the State Board of Education, however, and as with any government job, pay scale is based off of education level. I receive supplements for my certifications, but they do not factor into my yearly raise or advancement schedule.
That's assuming that they don't enforce government regulated requirements for certification. I'm sure that when this gains any significant traction there will suddenly be quality concerns and we will need to "protect" the students and regulate to prevent chaos. There is only one way cartels succeed without breaking up internally - when they can enforce the contract on the offenders.
This is a very brave step in the right direction. In the long run they can NOT justify to give those remote learners not a "real" MIT degree (and I am sure they know this).
In the long run they can NOT justify to give those remote learners not a "real" MIT degree (and I am sure they know this).
The remote learner won't be getting the same experience as the residential learner. If nothing else, the remote leaner will be missing out on the lab work (remember "Mens et Manus") which is just as important as the academic work. As an MIT ME my lab work involved transducer work (accelerometers, strain gauges, microphones, LVDTs, DAQs, filters, etc) and manufacturing processes (CAD/CAM, injection molding, welding, machine shop, vacuum forming, CNC, etc) and actually having hands-on experience greatly assisted in my understanding of the academic work - for example, it's one thing to look at the calculations for plastic shrinkage, it's another thing to actually see how shrinkage can vary in your freshly-injection molded part, especially when the dyes used for color can affect shrinkage rates.
They can handle this. As I said, the key is to keep standards high. You don't have to do your bachelor's degree at MIT to get an MIT PhD, so MIT already considers lab work done at many other institutions sufficient to fulfill certain MIT prerequisites. They probably also accept transfer credits from other schools under various circumstances toward a B.S. They can join with Stanford, Caltech, Cambridge (UK), etc., and build on this foundation.
Sure they can, but if the students that receive MITx accreditation match the standards of certified MIT students then ideally there shouldn't be much difference, it will just take the job market a while to recognize this.
The interesting thing is that no matter what they decide to call the awarding entity, people will always refer to it as MITx (or some related moniker).
The article made it clear that MIT was desperate to avoid diluting their own brand equity ("we'll grant certifications using a subsidiary with some other name so there's NO confusion"), but it looks to me as though the industry is heading in the direction I'm talking about one way or another.