The sort of content that MIT offers is exactly what I would rather have. Task-based learning about subjects that interest me. Generalized learning is a waste of my time and effort. "Professional Certifications" like the A+ or Net+ are highly regarded pieces of paper that prove the holder knows how to read a book and take a test which requires no practical knowledge of the material. If the employment industry can embrace this type of learning, and focus on the candidates abilities instead of resume, open learning could have a very bright future.
Also, I have found my education to be very useful in my work, both at home and for my employer. Mainly the math though (discrete, linear algebra, and stats). The programming not so much, as I already knew how to program.
I have considered local colleges, but with two small children and a wife that is a social worker, it is very difficult to find classes that fit my schedule. The premium for online schooling is absolutely ridiculous, but it is the price I pay for the convenience. Also, I have no interest in changing careers, so going full-time is not really an option either.
As for learning experience, an AA in IT is about as basic as it gets. I'm a Systems Administrator taking classes like 'Introduction to LAN Technologies.' I had the most fun in my two Web Design classes because that is something I had not tackled previously... though, to be honest, I could have learned everything those two classes taught me in a weekends time on my own.
When I was in community college, finding night classes and online classes was easy. Once I switched, I had to take more day classes. Glad I had a flexible employer.
As a Sys Admin, I think certifications are king. I work for a global engineering firm and most of the IT guys here need the MCSE and CISCO stuff.
This is a very brave step in the right direction. In the long run they can NOT justify to give those remote learners not a "real" MIT degree (and I am sure they know this).
The remote learner won't be getting the same experience as the residential learner. If nothing else, the remote leaner will be missing out on the lab work (remember "Mens et Manus") which is just as important as the academic work. As an MIT ME my lab work involved transducer work (accelerometers, strain gauges, microphones, LVDTs, DAQs, filters, etc) and manufacturing processes (CAD/CAM, injection molding, welding, machine shop, vacuum forming, CNC, etc) and actually having hands-on experience greatly assisted in my understanding of the academic work - for example, it's one thing to look at the calculations for plastic shrinkage, it's another thing to actually see how shrinkage can vary in your freshly-injection molded part, especially when the dyes used for color can affect shrinkage rates.
Why can't they justify it? If the deal is MIT degrees for residential students and 'distance' degrees from an MIT subsidiary, that's just fine.
Edit: It's trivial to argue that a 'real' MIT degree includes the experience of being resident and directly interacting with profs and other students.
The article made it clear that MIT was desperate to avoid diluting their own brand equity ("we'll grant certifications using a subsidiary with some other name so there's NO confusion"), but it looks to me as though the industry is heading in the direction I'm talking about one way or another.