I don't think online education will have a significant impact on major universities. However, there are a lot of colleges and universities that probably shouldn't exist. I can think of two types:
1. State schools that became 'universities' in the past 30 years but were previously 'teachers colleges' 'nursing colleges' and other specialized tertiary educational institutions for specific careers.
Seriously, does a big state like Illinois need 12 different business colleges, 12 different English departments, 12 different chemistry departments? Or how about Idaho, population 1.5 million with its 3 state universities and 5 state colleges. Really?
No - a lot of 'universities' only got that appellation because administrators lobbied state legislatures really hard for more money if they created the appearance that they'd be a 'world class' institution. They're not. The quality of education at many of these schools, excepting a handful of departments or colleges where they've really invested heavily, just isn't that different from what you could get in an online program. It'd be different if the University of Northern Iowa went back to being the Iowa State Teachers College - Iowa needs teachers! It probably doesn't need three different universities graduating International Studies majors.
2. Small standalone private colleges founded in earlier periods that don't really have a particular rationale for existing anymore.
Back in the 1800s, the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church needed to have a college that would be attended primarily by Methodist Episcopalians who wanted to be taught by other Methodist Episcopalians. Now, what is it exactly that distinguishes Goucher as an institution from any of the dozens of other tiny private colleges dotting our nation's landscape? Do their degrees carry much weight?
They're expensive, and up in the northeast it seems like most of them are for well-to-do suburban kids who couldn't get into the Ivy League and don't want to study with the state school rabble they've been looking down on most of their lives. What's more, it seems like a lot of them spend more time focusing on holding onto real estate than they do investing in research and academia that makes our nation better.
So I think major state research universities, commuter colleges in big cities, and the private university giants will do fine, and probably make even more money from whatever happens online. But if you're giving Swarthmore $50k a year, or Western Michigan $20k, you literally get what you pay for.
You're leaving out the author's point that a lot of people are wondering if there is an Airbus problem in the aftermath of the Yemenia crash and Flight 447's plummet into the Atlantic Ocean. He is saying that factors other than the plane itself resulted in the crash. So I disagree with your statement that the title is misleading.
I love the feeling of being able to answer just about any (small) question I have at a moment's notice. "I don't think you're right about [x]" in casual conversation has turned into "let's consult the oracle." "Did anyone check the weather?" has turned into "The Weather Channel says..." I definitely feel like that's a quality in my life that's been improved.
Why does everyone have to be a 'citizen journalist?' Just because you're sharing information with the world, it doesn't make you a journalist. Self-publishing is great and all, but the best journalists don't rely only on their personal impressions of the world (i.e. "I heard Mousavi is under house arrest TWEET"). They check up on things and publish things they didn't believe that turn out to be true. Most 'citizen journalists' are just citizens with a piece of a megaphone.
I agree, and I also think that for something to be legitimate civil disobedience, you have to at least be a member of the civil society that you're disobeying. While there might be some westerners of Iranian descent involved in the denial of service attacks, most of the people involved probably are not directly connected to Iranian society.
I'm surprised the average household income of a hockey fan is $89,000. I always thought hockey was a more working class sport. I wonder if this has to do with hockey's gradual southern movement creating a fan base that doesn't mesh with the stereotypical hockey fan.
This is one of those situations where you evaluate who sent you the invite. My aunt who can barely figure out her Macbook: don't click on it. Cool friend who knows tech: click on it. Guess which one invited me to Tagged?
I don't think he was saying that computers exclusively run the Airbus. He's saying that the failure of the autopilot in a difficult situation leads to a cascade of problems that can be harder to deal with in the more simplified Airbus cockpit.
1. State schools that became 'universities' in the past 30 years but were previously 'teachers colleges' 'nursing colleges' and other specialized tertiary educational institutions for specific careers.
Seriously, does a big state like Illinois need 12 different business colleges, 12 different English departments, 12 different chemistry departments? Or how about Idaho, population 1.5 million with its 3 state universities and 5 state colleges. Really?
No - a lot of 'universities' only got that appellation because administrators lobbied state legislatures really hard for more money if they created the appearance that they'd be a 'world class' institution. They're not. The quality of education at many of these schools, excepting a handful of departments or colleges where they've really invested heavily, just isn't that different from what you could get in an online program. It'd be different if the University of Northern Iowa went back to being the Iowa State Teachers College - Iowa needs teachers! It probably doesn't need three different universities graduating International Studies majors.
2. Small standalone private colleges founded in earlier periods that don't really have a particular rationale for existing anymore.
Back in the 1800s, the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church needed to have a college that would be attended primarily by Methodist Episcopalians who wanted to be taught by other Methodist Episcopalians. Now, what is it exactly that distinguishes Goucher as an institution from any of the dozens of other tiny private colleges dotting our nation's landscape? Do their degrees carry much weight?
They're expensive, and up in the northeast it seems like most of them are for well-to-do suburban kids who couldn't get into the Ivy League and don't want to study with the state school rabble they've been looking down on most of their lives. What's more, it seems like a lot of them spend more time focusing on holding onto real estate than they do investing in research and academia that makes our nation better.
So I think major state research universities, commuter colleges in big cities, and the private university giants will do fine, and probably make even more money from whatever happens online. But if you're giving Swarthmore $50k a year, or Western Michigan $20k, you literally get what you pay for.