It's ironic isn't it. What would the cost of purely attending classes and exams be? $2,000 or $3,000 a year?
But no, if citizens wish to educate and certify themselves (from a reputable institution I might add), they must purchase the full package including all the bells and whistles that come with societies, events, parties, support, guidance councillors on the side.
It's really time to introduce a "I just want to learn and sit for exams" package for those unable or unwilling to pay for the extras.
Maybe the reputable organizations have a more comprehensive approach because that approach is more effective?
This is exactly the issue and I am in no way doubting that these approaches are more effective. However, at some point, a decision was made to choose between a fundamental trade-off of "maximizing the effectiveness of the experience" and "minimizing the barriers to entry".
I have heard of discussions in Germany (using as an example because I know what's going on) around whether the top tier universities (there is no real top-tier, they are all very good, but some have made a particular name for themselves) should charge more so that they can offer a more varied and dynamic experience.
But there are strong arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level.
At the end of the day, if you are lucky enough to end up at a brilliant institution, you will find a way to cope and get the most out of the experience (maybe you must rely on less support, and activities and events are more in the hands of self-organising students). That, in my view, is a better scenario than having potential students/classmates not be able to engage with each other due to means that are (often but not always) outside of their control.
> arguments on both sides, in particular against this approach because it goes against the fundamental idea that financial means should never become a barrier to entry - at any level.
These ideas are not incompatible. You can both raise prices and ensure that financial means are not a barrier to entry. Simply take into account the financial means of the applicant. Most of the top schools in the US already do this and are tuition-free for students with lower (or even middle) income.
i.e.: https://studentloanhero.com/featured/free-college-tuition-pr...
This is a problem for the exact reason you mention, but also:
> This includes facilities, support services, activities, athletics. Then there is just the socialization, dorm experience, meeting people, parties
> ...they need the ridiculously high tuition money (including from out-of-state and international students as mentioned)
And these students from China, India, and elsewhere don't care about the great basketball team at the university or the football tailgating events or the pool parties! (or at least not as much :)
The bloat has also resulted in a proliferation of degree programs by focusing on what can make the schools the most money. Thus not providing the real-world/educational requirements that may be necessary but not as "fun".
One of my colleagues teaches intro physics to 1000+ students remotely. It seems to work quite well actually. His TAs screens the questions students have -- it's not like there are 1000 different ones, many a similar/same. He says the large audience is actually an advantage: If he explains something bad/wrong, at least some of them will pick up on it and ask.
I guess it really depends on the type of student. If I were a college student now, classes alone indeed are a fraction of the in-person university experience. Besides classes, I'd also need:
- Challenging homework and rigorous scoring and feedback -- this would be critical to my future success. Standard tests won't cut it as I need my professors and tutors give me feedbacks on my proofs, my homework, my assignments, and detailed and usually lengthy and overly verbose reports.
- Opportunities to work on a research project with my professors and senior students.
- Office hour with professors.
- Seminar-like classes that students and professors dive deep together on a subject.
Things I'll miss: libraries. I used to check out 10 to 20 books a time, and spend hours and hours in my college libraries reading them and doing assignments. Classmates turn to friends. There's so much fond memories of hanging out with friends I made in college. We can probably make it up by hanging out online, but the experience will be different from face-to-face interactions.
What I don't need and will be glad to see them gone: all kinds of crazy sports programs. Yeah, football or basketball or whatever. They're nice, but I'm not sure if they are multi-million-dollar nice, at least not to me. I don't give a rat's butt if Caltech didn't win collegiate basketball for 37 years. So what? For all I know, Caltech will be the best college as long it provides the best STEM courses and produces the best research results in the world.
From a selfish and ideological standpoint, I would love to see non-academic aspects of universities dismantled.
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/04/university-financ...
Classes are only a fraction of the in-person university experience in the USA today. Schools are priced accordingly and they heavily invest in and compete on non-classroom factors. This includes facilities, support services, activities, athletics. Then there is just the socialization, dorm experience, meeting people, parties, on and on.
So it would be a totally reasonable and logical next step in history for schools to say, "Hey, we believe that a lot of the value we offer is the in-person experience. So we will offer remote classes for a lower cost, to many more online-education students." Like Ga Tech's masters program.
But, with COVID, the universities have backed themselves into a corner because they should probably make the next year remote, but they made all these expensive on-campus investments and to stay afloat they need the ridiculously high tuition money (including from out-of-state and international students as mentioned). So all of a sudden, they can't afford to admit that remote learning is a much less valuable product.
(One thing I am ignoring is the real difficulties and cost from professors to teach large remote classes in an actually effective way. I'm sure administrators will ignore it too.)