University of California Proposes Online Degrees

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/12/MN581EAQR0.DTL

by p_alexander • 16 years ago

10 18 16 years ago

"We want to do a highly selective, fully online, credit-bearing program on a large scale - and that has not been done," said UC Berkeley law school Dean Christopher Edley

There is absolutely no reason to be selective in an online college unless you are trying to create artificial scarcity.

This quote shows just how pointless college is.

rick8884• 16 years ago

"There is absolutely no reason to be selective in an online college unless you are trying to create artificial scarcity."

If every college let everyone in, it would be worthless. Colleges need to be selective. They should base admission on grades.

noelchurchill2• 16 years ago

They could let everyone in, they don't have to pass everyone. Let the cream rise to the top and let everyone else drop out. As long as the courses were rigorous enough then the degree would maintain it's credibility.

SamAtt• 16 years ago

For that to be true you have to argue that College grades are meaningless (because if you base your judgments on College grades you can let everyone in and judge them based on how they do once they're in). To take your logic a step further you're saying the worth in a degree is based on a person's ability to get into an institution.

So essentially what you're saying is we should judge people in the job market based on their High School performance which, IMHO, is kind of ridiculous.

anigbrowl2• 16 years ago

Surely the test of individual ability is not whether they can participate, but whether they can graduate? Of course, open admissions would result in a lot of washouts after the first semester, but since a good many of these will be self-selected they'll arguably be providing a small subsidy to the more capable students.

(edit: I wonder if rick888's view results from the popularity of 'grading on a curve' - ie, grade as a measure of class ranking, rather than objective ability? In that case, it makes more sense...but then I think GoaC is a bad idea to begin with)

I do find it a bit ironic that this proposal comes from the dean of Berkeley's law school, but doesn't address the question of teaching that subject online. Legal education is thought by many to be at a crossroads right now: the number of nationally accredited schools is increasing, costs are at a record high, but job prospects at a record low. Online instruction is considered anathema by many in the legal educational establishment - ie, schools accredited by the ABA - since it's incompatible with the traditional Case/Socratic method of teaching law (Q & A in class about study assignments rather than lecturing). Many law firms complain that this system is better at producing law school professors than lawyers, and a much-discussed 2007 report from the Carnegie Foundation seems to back up their claims (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/public...).

Of course, Boalt Hall (Berkeley's law school) regularly scores in the top 10 national rankings, and its graduates are correspondingly well-positioned for career success, so the dean has no economic incentive to mess with success as regards his own department. I don't mean to cast any negative aspersions here; I was just surprised to see him advancing the argument for distance learning in any context.

(Disclosure: I'm planning to study law, but don't have a strong pro or con feeling about any particular instruction method)

gte910h• 16 years ago

It wouldn't be worthless. It would be worth what the students learn. That plus policies tossing out those who don't get good enough grades (like real colleges have) and you've got no problem offering infinite online attendance.

aaco• 16 years ago

"If every college let everyone in, it would be worthless."

I think that HN, while not a college, might be a counterexample for this idea.

Here everyone can join and communicate, and yet we can maintain a high level of communication. The ones who don't fit are quickly flagged or simply won't come back again.

I think selectivity is good, however it doesn't need to be enforced in the admission step, it will happen in the middle of the process. People who would not be able to follow the course requirements would quickly drop out.

I'm not arguing that this idea would work (I don't really know), but based on the HN experience I think it should be considered.

jey• 16 years ago

Why grades? Do they actually measure anything coherent?

lsc• 16 years ago

if colleges teach you no valuable skills, and only function as a way for employers to 'pre screen' candidates, sure, you are right. (of course, if schools don't teach anything that increases a worker's productivity, then they are pretty useless as a 'pre screen' too.)

However, one would hope that college would actually teach something, and would make the students more productive.

"But" you say "If everyone is more productive, won't their wages stay the same?"

sure, if everyone doubles their productivity, in a fair market, nobody will get a larger cut of the total economic output than they were getting before the productivity increase

However, if everyone's productivity doubles, there will be more economic output to divide. even if your percent of the pie stays the same, it's a bigger pie.

Of course, I'm ignoring inefficiencies here. Obviously, all groups try to maneuver such that they get a larger piece of the pie, but that happens all the time, not just in times of economic growth.

University of California Proposes Online Degrees

Related Stories