<p>Residential college is already a luxury item. The majority of students do not consume education that way. I can easily see Coursera and the like replacing a lot of community college and evening instruction - the students in that market have already given up on the college experience.</p>
<p>Idea:<br>
Bookmark this article and put a reminder 10 years in the future on your e-calendar… or maybe print a copy and save the date on a hard calendar and store these items in your desk, since who knows what is really going to be saved in “The Cloud” or if your e-calendar will be available on the next model “smart” device) Come back to CC in 10 years and have this discussion and see who’s predictions came true. (If CC is still around.) While I agree there will be some hybriding, I do not think people want to be alone on a long term basis. People are social animals and a big part of the brain is dedicated to this puprose. People need people and people need human contact. How much more isolated and lonely can we become as humans? The effects of texting versus real live physical conversation on our children will soon be a major study at e-Harvard. A serious conversation needs to be had about the future of humanity, if you ask me, because this brick and mortar debate is just a small slice of the more important conversation about technology and its effects on humans. Are we putting ourselves out of the human business? Don’t we all need a purpose, meaningful work and connection to others to find our lives meaningful? Going to my printer now…</p>
<p>I know you are joking about your “printer”, because according to predictions from the 1980’s we’ve been living in a “paperless world” for many years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that 18-year-olds will not want to live at home and take courses online if that means not interacting with other young people, but at the prices residential colleges are charging, young people will find other ways to meet each other.</p>
<p>What about lab courses?? Sorry, I am not buying it. I think universities are here to stay for quite some time. College isn’t just about “taking courses” – there is a lot to be learned from dynamic, in-person interaction with students and faculty.</p>
<p>
A convenient excuse to get rid of some dead weight. At its lowest during the crisis their endowment was still something like $25 billion. There is a lot of funny business around how it is valued. And it rebounded in only a couple years.</p>
<p>
Because there is no need to - people are more than willing to write the checks.</p>
<p>
All that is required is that their endowments increase as fast as tuition.</p>
<p>Harvard is buying up land as fast as it can. It sure doesn’t seem like they are worried about the in-person experience going away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least if you’re a first generation consumer…my question is, who will be willing to maintain this vast digital cloud of information if not the universities? I don’t see where the “inherent” competition comes in for free courses.
I’m all for listening to the White Album over and over, but course lectures, most notably in the sciences, change with new information, more current examples and, obviously, updated material. Won’t an even smaller, more specialized industry develop to manufacture and package education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eventually, in this case, being right now. Already more credits than that are earned online.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember that the majority of college students in the US right now are in community college. Spending four years at a residential college is not the pattern most college students follow.</p>
<p>Cardinal, among the traditional college age group (18-24 year olds), the majority are not in community college - only 31 percent. However, the majority are not residential students at 4-year schools (commuters to 4-year schools making up the difference.)</p>
<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_213.asp[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_213.asp</a></p>
<p>And regarding the 2.5% figure, I am just having a bit of fun mocking the fabulous growth of telecommuting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would certainly agree with that last sentence. But I never said “all online teaching is better than all classroom teaching”. What I called “patently false” is your implication that online instruction can never be superior to traditional classroom teaching–the evidence continues to disprove this assumption.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But don’t you see how much closer we have come to a paperless world? And we will get there! Every year more offices are scrapping their paper files and digitizing everything. I was recently surprised and relieved at how much of a major transaction in the U.S. I could accomplish from another country through the electronic exchange of documents, including ones validated with my uploaded signature. Yes, it will take a while longer, but how can you doubt that’s where we’re headed given how far we’ve come?</p>
<p>And, Bob, you keep referring to all these unrealized predictions–I wish you’d actually give evidence of them because I believe you are distorting what technologists and experts in particular fields have actually forecast.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The growth is clear when you compare the 2005 figures to the 2009 figures. Obviously, certain kinds of jobs can never be done remotely (just as toilet paper and diapers from paper pulp are never going away). I don’t know offhand how much of the labor-force are in white-collar jobs that could be done mostly at home, but in any case, from that perspective, 2.5% is nothing to sneeze at.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, the vision laid out in this article addresses the four-year residential model. It does not portend an end to interaction with professors and fellow students–much of which can be done through virtual discussions groups (with or without video)–nor does it deny the need for in situ training for certain areas of study. I have a film major daughter and I know very well that much of her training was necessarily hands on–but still at least 50% per cent of her courses–the ones comprised of lectures, small discussion groups and peer/T.A. feedback–could have been completed online. My other daughter, as a science major, spends quite a bit of time in the lab at her school. In the future, a similar student could go to local facilities for introductory courses with a lab component (about 25% of her coursework to date) and then spend a year on a campus under the tutelage of a researcher/professor to complete her initial education. </p>
<p>To reiterate, the future model does not suppose a limiting of human interaction for young adults, there are many other outlets for engaging socially and productively that don’t necessitate a campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a BS strawman you’ve created in your head - I said nothing of the sort, what I said was this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to prove my statement “patently false”, then show how online instruction is fundamentally superior. So far you have a study that says it can give similar outcomes. How is that fundamentally superior? And what evidence is there that the college marketplace chooses colleges based on outcomes in any case? I see no indication of that, although it would be a welcome change.</p>
<p>Regarding the mythical “paperless society”, since it was predicted in 1980, per capita paper consumption has increased 50%, according to the Economist: <a href=“http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-0[/url]”>http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-0</a></p>
<p>@Cardinal Fang
In community college, there is still interaction between students and professors, perhaps even more so than in larger residential universities, if class sizes are smaller at a cc. So I am not sure I follow where you are heading with your argument.</p>
<p>By the way, I have taken on-line courses, both undergraduate and graduate level, and the experience just does not compare to in-person. Furthermore, I know somebody who will take on-line courses for hire. Really unethical, but apparently there is a market for that sort of thing.</p>
<p>I’m not surprised there are people who will take online courses for a price. There are people who will write papers for a price as well, and (for large lecture courses) there are people who will take exams for a price.</p>
<p>For computer courses, for me, online instruction is superior. I can listen to the lectures any time I want. I can stop the lectures and rewind. I can listen at 1.5 speed (which is absolutely wonderful). If I have a question late at night, I can ask on the discussion forums and some guy halfway around the world will answer right away. It’s just better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Backtrack as you will, but I interpret this as you saying that online instruction cannot be superior to the in-person experience (now or apparently 20+ years from now). But that study concludes that online results are comparable to, and are accomplished in LESS time than, traditional instruction. If you consider that the savings in overhead and economy of scale makes it more cost efficient, than you have a superior product.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, nice try, but the global growth in paper consumption is due mainly to a greater use of “primarily tissue [toilet paper] and specialty pulp used in baby diapers and adult incontinence and feminine hygiene products” in emerging economies. Meanwhile, paper use in the U.S. has declined.</p>
<p>[AR</a> News, April 2012 | Paper use on long-term downward trend](<a href=“http://www.americanrecycler.com/0412/1515paper.shtml]AR”>http://www.americanrecycler.com/0412/1515paper.shtml)</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, online classes have been superior for you, but is that the case for the majority of students? That has yet to be proven. It is cost effective to deliver classes in such a manner - particularly when there are a small number of students spread over a large area, who wouldn’t be able to hold a class together. But for many students the online model does not work well.</p>
<p>I too have taken numerous online classes - in fact I did so to complete my degree after a few years of on-campus study. While I enjoyed the ability to take the classes when I wanted, I also realized it was not a model that will work for everybody. It is likely to work well for many here, because we are computer-savvy, and many students here are driven. They have the self-motivation necessary to succeed in the online environment. Many don’t have that same motivation, and would not do well with an entirely online model. Maybe they would be OK with a hybrid model.</p>
<p>I have seen this in my field - tax preparation. We have to complete additional training every year, and we are offered a variety of classes in both online and classroom settings. The push is now to move to more online, because the demand for certain classes is low - not low overall, but low enough it doesn’t make sense to offer the classes in many geographic locations, for only 3 or 4 students. Instead, they are moving to a hybrid model, where the classes still meet at a specific time, but in a virtual classroom - not the same at what is being suggested here, but perhaps a move in that direction. We still need the interaction between students and instructions and students with each other.</p>
<p>The role I see for online classes is similar - you still attend a physical campus, where you are advised, and someone oversees your progress toward your degree. But the list of classes that are available becomes more broad, because you have content piped in from other campuses. Your university still has final say over how those classes will be applied toward your degree. Perhaps those taking classes in this manner will be treated much as transfer students are now - you still have a residency requirement, and the school still has final say over what can transfer in. Those students may end up with the same credential as those who attend for 4 years, but there will still be a limit to how many students can earn a degree each year - and those spots will go to those who commit earlier in their program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I said is clear, no matter what sort of lie you want to make up as “interpretation”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You apparently can’t properly interpret your own article of choice - the reference you quote is to US exports not to global consumption. Global consumption is increasing, driven by packaging paper, not diapers:</p>
<p>“Growth in the global paper and paper products industry is currently driven by rising demand from some of the fast emerging nations in the APAC, particularly for the packaging grade paper or corrugated paper products.”</p>
<p>[Global</a> Paper and Paper Products Consumption Grows at a Modest Rate to Reach 446 Million Tons by 2015, According to a New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.](<a href=“http://www.prweb.com/releases/paper_and_paper_products/printing_corrugated_boxes/prweb9148710.htm]Global”>http://www.prweb.com/releases/paper_and_paper_products/printing_corrugated_boxes/prweb9148710.htm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Paper use in the US has increased since 1980, not declined as predicted. There have been some recent declines, due to many factors including loss of industry to overseas, green initiatives, weaker economy, as well as some of the predicted migration to e-documents.</p>
<p>The same article you quote expresses grave doubt that the predicted paperless world will ever come to pass, but maybe you didn’t comprehend that part either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Follow link for chart:</p>
<p>[CONVERSABLE</a> ECONOMIST: The Paperless Office: Headed that Way at Last?](<a href=“http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/the-paperless-office-headed-that-way-at.html]CONVERSABLE”>CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: The Paperless Office: Headed that Way at Last?)</p>
<p>Important to note that these figures include all paper product consumption including toilet paper, packaging, diapers, etc. A chart with only office paper/printed documents would show the decline more dramatically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, the prediction was “Paperless office by end of 20th century.” That prediction has proven horribly, tragically wrong, as all the data show.</p>
<p>Paper consumption actually increased in the office, rather than decreasing as predicted.</p>
<p>Now, with the economic downturn and green initiatives, office paper consumption is finally seeing a downturn, although still higher than 1980 levels.</p>
<p>And you are calling that a win for the “paperless office by 2000” prediction?</p>
<p>If you want to water down the prediction for online courses to “online education will grow in some contexts”, most everyone acknowledges that, and apparently you’ll take that outcome as a win for “online education will end the university as we know it”.</p>
<p>Bob Wallace:
</p>
<p>Wildwood11:
</p>
<p>Bob Wallace:
</p>
<p>Pardon my obtuseness, but what exactly did you mean when you said that online learning was hardly fundamentally superior to in-person instruction so as to become a disruptive technology?</p>