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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.