That may be part of it, but a not-insiginificant part of the issue is that Georgia Tech, as an institution, isn't allowed to set the rules. The Georgia Board of Regents has relatively tight control (presumably through budgetary means, if not explicit control means) over the policies schools are allowed to implement. So even if GT leadership wanted to implement something like a mask-required or an online-classes-by-request, no questions asked rule, it isn't actually allowed to by the state.

GT's leadership is still somewhat culpable, don't get me wrong the President could be doing better, but the buck doesn't stop with him in this case.

This is right on, and just another example of GT (a top tier engineering school) being physically located in, and largely beholden to, a state that doesn’t care about, or is downright hostile to all things “technology”/“smart”.

I love my alma mater, but I wish somebody over at Emory would have figured out a way to buy out the state at some point and have us as part of them.

> a state that doesn’t care about, or is downright hostile to all things “technology”/“smart”.

I know this is a generalization, but I find it kind of egregious. Georgia is one of the only states left (AFAIK) where you can essentially attend an in-state college for free if you have a high enough GPA [0]. You can argue about the means by which that is achieved (the lottery), but as a current Tech student I know plenty of very talented students who wouldn't be able to attend college, let alone an engineering school, without these scholarship programs. I doubt that a state/government that truly was anti-technology or anti-"smart" would funnel what must be billions of dollars a year into academic scholarships.

[0]: https://www.gafutures.org/hope-state-aid-programs/hope-zell-...

Largely the state leadership is in for the economic benefits, but not the social consequences of having a more educated population.

It is also the state where the governor said I didn't know COVID could be spread person to person. The people decided this man was the best person to make decisions on our behalf.

Having a lottery determine who gets in is anti-smart (to steal your word) because it doesn't reward based on anything other than randomness. Maybe better described as socialist

The lottery he’s referring to is the state lottery, as in gambling.

All proceeds from the state lottery must, by law, go fund pre-K education and college tuition.

This was a necessary condition to legalize the lottery because conservative rural GA Christians believe lotteries are sinful.

In GA pre-K and state colleges are free to state residents.

What a backwards bunch of hicks! /sarcasm

If Tech CS students and faculty revolt, we'll welcome them with open arms at Emory, where the entire CS department is teaching online this fall.

Sadly the tuition at emory is 4x the price of Georgia Tech in state tuition.

Not to mention that HOPE is funded by the lottery (or at least it was when I decided to not go to Georgia Tech with all other friends and instead went up North).

So financial aid / scholarships are not only fickle, but also funded by things that hurt the communities that such scholarships would help out most.

Emory still has a lot of other issues, just because of being in the South.

Anybody in GA can take their children to pre-K for free.

Any young person in GA can work hard and go to top schools for free.

I think that’s a pretty awesome deal for disadvantaged communities. Especially compared to every other state that has legal lotteries and eye watering tuition.

Sure, I’d rather lotteries were illegal again. But I’d keep the HOPE baby as I dump the bath water. It’s a model for other states!

You would rather be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt than go to a top engineering school for free?

You’re aware those same hicks with their backward values that voted for values you don’t agree with are the same hicks, with the same values, that made GT free for you to attend?

Those conservative evangelicals who agreed to legalize the state lottery only if all proceeds go to tuition and early childhood education - they’re the reason your education was free.

Edit that “buy out” to “form some sort of public/private partnership with an independent board”

I think things are too entrenched these days, but the schools strong points complement each other so well.

From what I have seen (I’m at Tulane but have friends at Emory), they seem to have detailed plans and attention to making sure research labs have strict occupancy limits.

“ being physically located in, and largely beholden to, a state that doesn’t care about, ”

You appreciate the irony that this hostile state and her backwards residents paid to have this top school with top facilities and top researchers, right?

> they won’t be able to charge what they normally charge for online classes

I have two contradictory points for this.

One, I applied for online graduate programs several years ago and found that the majority of programs had the same cost for online and offline tuition. The idea that online programs should be cheaper is not really supported in general. You could argue that as a whole college education is overpriced, but clearly the market will bear it.

Two, the program I did select is Georgia Tech's online masters of computer science (OMSCS) which is: 1) significantly cheaper that on-campus tuition 2) really excellent in terms of quality and 3) a very enormous program with thousands of students.

In this case it's unfortunate they aren't drawing from their experience in multiple successful OMS programs to create a high quality online experience for a large number of students.

Even if the cost of tuition is the same, these universities invested millions and billions of dollars into building on-campus amenities, that they can't charge their students for, if the students are learning remotely.

They can and they do. I've paid Georgia Tech athletic fees while attending remote campuses with no amenities.

Kind of on the right track. As a student myself, we have realized the value of a college education comes from the on campus environment. So, if it's online, we will take gap quarters/years and universities will receive $0.(I am planning to take Fall quarter off because online is not worth it)

I wish it was possible for this upcoming fall semester to be some kind of internship/research program period instead. It seems like every type of student other than performance arts could find some organization to do some kind of remote work for in their field. It'd probably require federal funding though.

please explain this to me how the value comes from the on campus education?

Aside from the other good answers, there's also a much simpler reason: lab classes. CS and math are the only STEM fields I can think of where you won't have at least a few classes with labs where access to equipment and hands-on instruction are key.

I'm no longer in school (graduated a while ago), but I would make the same decision as the person you are responding to. What I liked about school was the social aspect that made learning easier/more enjoyable. It was nice walking into the library and recognizing a face from class to chat about what was taught. It was nice running into somebody while walking to class to chat about what was going to be taught/what was taught.

There is a spontaneous social element to the learning process that I believe can't be replicated online.

While that aspect is nice, I firmly believe that basically any college class can be aced by attending lectures and more importantly, reading the book.

I disagree pretty strongly with this. For me, the social elements of college were pretty distracting and unhelpful to learning/earning my degree. Secondly, with technologies like Zoom, Slack, and general learning management software, it's actually very easy to collaborate with other students for studying, working on problem sets (when allowed), etc. And finally the cost of college is absurd. Even assuming that the tuition cost were the same, going online would allow for cheaper housing costs and would give back some valuable time.

Overall, I feel like online makes better sense for college education than in-person. But that's also my long-term view and I wouldn't expect an impromptu switchover like we're facing now to be the best. There are also a large percentage of degree programs that do require hands-on instruction like say, a degree in chemistry, which I agree would have to stay on-campus.

Networking, engagement with peers, connections to incubators and startups.

Those things can easily happen online.

I took one of the first online classes 20 years ago. The opportunity for connecting was different but friends will be made regardless.

It’s not just about class. It’s about building your network and having experiences. Many aspects of class are also compromised online as well.

Course credit costs perhaps not, but a completely on-line option guts revenues in terms of room and board, for instance. Any institution that is tuition dependent and has built an operating budget around being a residential college/university cannot survive that without significant restructuring.