I've heard it put this way: Why would Stanford reject 95% of the people who want to pay them full tuition for the education?

I think Peter Thiel's answer is correct - The value of the education is similar to a night club's. It's about how long the line is outside of the club that determines how desirable it is.

It's not only the knowledge that people are paying for. It's the branding and the filtering that provides most of the value. So Stanford/MIT granting degrees to anyone that studies open source material will never happen because that dillution destroys most of the value proposition

Edit: Another point: what other business would not seek to dramatically increase supply of their product if they could only sell their extremely expensive product to <5% of the willing buyers? Any other business would invest significantly in increasing their production capacity. But with universities if they increase their capacity then the actual value they provide diminishes. Stanford is no longer Stanford if they have 900k students

Edit 2: My hope is that a university without enormous branding/filtering risk (Like WGU) could implement a model like this. Or a tech co could spin up a small attached accredited university that exclusively focuses on granting degrees to async learners. Like Amazon expanding their certifications they provide to granting an actual BS in CS if the student passes a bunch of exams.

I hear you, and maybe I shouldn't have used such a big name as an example, since if one wants a Rolex it's usually not to tell time. That's why I opened with degree as a service - some place with the financial incentive not to be a degree mill (and thus turn into University of Phoenix-esque) but who doesn't care how long the line is to get into their exclusive club, rather they care about allowing more folks to put "yes, I have BSCS or MSCS" on their resume without having to go through the traditional channels to get one

I applaud my alma mater for their MSCS effort, which in my mind elevates their prestige not dilutes it: https://www.gatech.edu/academics/degrees/masters/computer-sc...

Yeah, someone like that would be perfect. I personally am self taught and didn't finish my CS degree and every few years I look around for an option like this. I'm an experienced senior dev and the opportunity cost of finishing my degree is always just way too high relative to any value it would actually provide for my career. I wish something like this existed.

The degree doesn't matter in most of tech but if I ever wanted to work for the government or military I'd be automatically disqualified for not having a degree despite having the ability. The tech interview process that many people deride actually provides the opportunity to get a great tech job if you just simply know the material. It's been a huge advantage for me

> The degree doesn't matter in most of tech but if I ever wanted to work for the government or military I'd be automatically disqualified for not having a degree despite having the ability.

You do not need a degree to work for the government or military, at least not as a contractor, and almost all of the interesting work is done by contractors.

Yeah, you can still get the job, however you will hit a glass ceiling in terms of pay.

Do you have a MSCS from gatech? If so did you like the program?

No, and sorry if I gave that impression. Mine was just BSCS and then I actually got about half way though the MSCS at Drexel because they were one of the few institutions that offered 100% remote MSCS at the time. Then, I had a change of circumstance and didn't finish it. I was interested in the GT MSCS but didn't pursue it for the same reason I didn't finish the Drexel one: it just didn't feel like the ROI for my situation was worth it

>I've heard it put this way: Why would Stanford reject 95% of the people who want to pay them full tuition for the education?

Do they though, or do a lot of people apply to big name schools hoping to have that acceptance for cachet and not actually care about attending or even have the ability to attend for financial or other reasons?

>So Stanford/MIT granting degrees to anyone that studies open source material will never happen because that dillution destroys most of the value proposition

Presumably it wouldn't happen regardless because not enough people would actually pass the exams anyway.

> Stanford is no longer Stanford if they have 900k students

Is any specific thing worth it once that many people can easily recieve it?

I remember how well-respected certain technical certifications were a long time ago, and then you had braindumps, 3-day cram courses... and they basically became useless because most of the people that had them couldn't even answer basic questions.

> people can easily recieve it?

Maybe I'm not following something, but I doubt very, very seriously that a college degree could be termed "easily" for any accredited institution. I'm open to those high value places getting all the best teachers, and unquestionably the networking opportunities are outrageous, but I still wouldn't expect someone to sleepwalk through a no-cost community college course, for example, just because it is free and not Stanford-Priced

>I think "degree" should mean a degree - if they want to say "computer science curriculum" that's fine, or "degree requirements" or something

I agree, I often think the same about 'college' or 'university', your company's internal training catalog shouldn't be called a university.