If a school chooses any of say teachers / projects / learning material sub-optimally, why should a student need to suffer through?
Taking a look at 3blue1brown video comments, you see many students expressing that their tuition paid professor had failed them and they didn't truly have an intuition for the topic until after watching the 3blue1brown video.
Ideally, a decentralized model surfaces the best to the top so that everyone can learn from, and the creators be rewarded as such.
Beyond that, the new model should do away with timed blocks in favor of true self pacing. This accommodates people with limited time, handles emergencies well, and enables quick learners to accelerate their path without any special permissions required.
The platform should be as 'hands off' as possible, providing only the connections between the creators, tutors, certifiers, students, and recruiters.
It should have no admissions process, and ideally be free. Traditional colleges do a lot of gatekeeping. Education should be accessible to anyone. Let students pursue education, regardless of their presumed 'chance of success', or financial status.
First, what's OMSCS? Could you supply a bit more detail rather than just "have you heard of it"? What is it? What's good about it?
Second, 5% acceptance rates are not typical of "the current university system". That's only a few "elite" schools. 40k/year may be more typical, but you can easily find less than half that.
Pros:
- video lectures are generally pretty polished, and include animations and other visual aids to help build intuition
- the course material is mostly high quality. this is the same material that on-site graduate students are presented, and the graded projects are challenging.
- there is opportunity to interact with other students and TAs: online message board, video office hours, unofficial Slack, etc.
- flexible enough to schedule around a full-time job
- inexpensive compared to in-person programs (the entire program with 10 courses is $7-$8k)
Cons:
- quality of materials, TAs, and organization can vary from course to course and term to term
- harder to build relationships / network than in-person programs
- it's course-based by default. you can pursue a research-based degree but it's nonstandard.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Tech_Online_Master_of_...
I'd say compared to my undergrad, the teaching quality is overall better. Which makes sense, since pedagogy is much more of a deliberate focus for OMSCS. I think this is a big advantage to online programs actually. There are definitely some rough patches, but the program is still young, and constantly improving.
Networking is much better too in my opinion, compared to my undergrad - you are in a class with full time professionals in a wide range of companies and industries - from software engineers to execs. There are many opportunities for networking. You do need to be involved in Slack/Piazza though, which takes time.
Becoming a TA is also the path to getting involved in research and even going into a PhD program after OMSCS. Very few people do this as it is a very large time commitment - but it is possible and professors generally are open to it.
Follow-up question: How hard is it to get into? Are there restrictions on how many students can take each class?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzMVEbs8Zz0
Also link to reddit discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OMSCS/comments/ihf7w6/acceptance_ra...
I've been in OMSCS for almost 5 years now. I can assuredly say that remote university education works incredibly well. Even better than in person in many respects. Not only that, but I truly believe it is vital to ensuring equal access to high quality education.
The current university system with 5% acceptance rates, 40k / year college fees, is untenable and just exacerbates class division. It's an antiquated system, and the move to fully remote degrees can't happen soon enough.