Why has technology not decreased the cost of college? (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

It seems technology would make learning more efficient, effective, and cheaper.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Hierarchy & sports, ie: identity. Been on breaking down the entire college system for a decade. Online & lab centers would knock 3/4 out of the cost. But social engineering won't have it.

 

[ZEKEPA]

It seems technology would make learning more efficient, effective, and cheaper.

It's exactly like a new tax that a government entity proposes and promises it is temporary. We are already conditioned to pay those(ridiculous) amounts. it's not going down. Just more money for the colleges to play with. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

It's exactly like a new tax that a government entity proposes and promises it is temporary. We are already conditioned to pay those(ridiculous) amounts. it's not going down. Just more money for the colleges to play with. 

It's about federal loans, IMO.

 

[SoBeDad]

On-line classes cost more than in-person classes at most universities. It's seems like a scam.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On-line classes cost more than in-person classes at most universities. It's seems like a scam.

Online classes are actually quite a bit more expensive to offer than face-to-face classes.

When you think of a college class, what image pops into your mind?  If you're like most people, it probably involves a professor standing behind a podium lecturing to a room crammed full of students.  There's a really good reason why universities have historically gravitated toward that model -- it's dirt cheap.  Basically you put a psychologist, historian, or handsome economist in front of a room of 250 undergraduates, and it's impossible for the university not to turn a profit on that class, a profit that can be used to subsidize more expensive programs like engineering and nursing.  That standard, iconic model of classroom-based instruction is the cash cow that keeps universities running.

Online classes don't work that way.  They're extremely hands-on and require the professor teaching to course to be on-call pretty much all the time.  My university generally caps enrollment in online classes at 35 students or so, and we're pretty normal in the regard.  There's just no way for a faculty member to keep up with his or her students in a class much larger than that while still providing an educational experience comparable to a bricks-and-mortar class.  

So department chairs and deans have a choice.  Do I want to put that quick-witted and virile economist in front of 250 students in a face-to-face class, or should I put him in an online class with only 35 students?  If the per-student tuition were the same, nobody would ever offer online classes.  There's no financial incentive to do so.

That's why online classes are pretty much universally more expensive than face-to-face classes.  The cost of instruction is way higher.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

It's expensive to brainwash students into thinking that life should be fair for everyone.

 

[SoBeDad]

Online classes are actually quite a bit more expensive to offer than face-to-face classes.

When you think of a college class, what image pops into your mind?  If you're like most people, it probably involves a professor standing behind a podium lecturing to a room crammed full of students.  There's a really good reason why universities have historically gravitated toward that model -- it's dirt cheap.  Basically you put a psychologist, historian, or handsome economist in front of a room of 250 undergraduates, and it's impossible for the university not to turn a profit on that class, a profit that can be used to subsidize more expensive programs like engineering and nursing.  That standard, iconic model of classroom-based instruction is the cash cow that keeps universities running.

Online classes don't work that way.  They're extremely hands-on and require the professor teaching to course to be on-call pretty much all the time.  My university generally caps enrollment in online classes at 35 students or so, and we're pretty normal in the regard.  There's just no way for a faculty member to keep up with his or her students in a class much larger than that while still providing an educational experience comparable to a bricks-and-mortar class.  

So department chairs and deans have a choice.  Do I want to put that quick-witted and virile economist in front of 250 students in a face-to-face class, or should I put him in an online class with only 35 students?  If the per-student tuition were the same, nobody would ever offer online classes.  There's no financial incentive to do so.

That's why online classes are pretty much universally more expensive than face-to-face classes.  The cost of instruction is way higher.

Makes sense for why large in-person classes can be cheaper. I helped an FIU student with a statistics on-line class a year ago, and she said her class had 100 people. The same for many of her on-line psychology classes, they were large. I'm gonna ask her again. I was impressed with her on-line experience using Canvas and stat-crunch. Her final exam was in person.

At FIU,  like many large public universities, there is no space for additional classrooms and on-campus parking. So they need on-line classes to grow. But they're saving big-time by not having to build new classrooms and provide maintenance. 

Students save time and transportation by taking on-line classes, so they benefit and don't complain about the additional fees, which aren't that large - about $20 per credit. It also costs to create on-line programs. With better AI, that cost should come down.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Online classes are actually quite a bit more expensive to offer than face-to-face classes.

When you think of a college class, what image pops into your mind?  If you're like most people, it probably involves a professor standing behind a podium lecturing to a room crammed full of students.  There's a really good reason why universities have historically gravitated toward that model -- it's dirt cheap.  Basically you put a psychologist, historian, or handsome economist in front of a room of 250 undergraduates, and it's impossible for the university not to turn a profit on that class, a profit that can be used to subsidize more expensive programs like engineering and nursing.  That standard, iconic model of classroom-based instruction is the cash cow that keeps universities running.

Online classes don't work that way.  They're extremely hands-on and require the professor teaching to course to be on-call pretty much all the time.  My university generally caps enrollment in online classes at 35 students or so, and we're pretty normal in the regard.  There's just no way for a faculty member to keep up with his or her students in a class much larger than that while still providing an educational experience comparable to a bricks-and-mortar class.  

So department chairs and deans have a choice.  Do I want to put that quick-witted and virile economist in front of 250 students in a face-to-face class, or should I put him in an online class with only 35 students?  If the per-student tuition were the same, nobody would ever offer online classes.  There's no financial incentive to do so.

That's why online classes are pretty much universally more expensive than face-to-face classes.  The cost of instruction is way higher.

Lectures with 250,000 students and unaffiliated data/lab centers would drastically reduce cost, however. Grad school would still find & filter the cream of the crop, but the top 1000 or so professors (plus the same grad students hooking up the questions & assignments) would appear to teach a great many things as well or better than the new economics prof @ Chadron State.

 

[The Commish]

They're extremely hands-on and require the professor teaching to course to be on-call pretty much all the time.

Can you explain this to me?  It seems counterintuitive and my wife is having the exact opposite experience.  What is required to be "extremely hands on" that one wouldn't have to do in a standard setting and why do they have to be "on-call pretty much all the time"?  Maybe it's the way it's implemented?

 

[IC FBGCav]

Online classes are actually quite a bit more expensive to offer than face-to-face classes.

When you think of a college class, what image pops into your mind?  If you're like most people, it probably involves a professor standing behind a podium lecturing to a room crammed full of students.  There's a really good reason why universities have historically gravitated toward that model -- it's dirt cheap.  Basically you put a psychologist, historian, or handsome economist in front of a room of 250 undergraduates, and it's impossible for the university not to turn a profit on that class, a profit that can be used to subsidize more expensive programs like engineering and nursing.  That standard, iconic model of classroom-based instruction is the cash cow that keeps universities running.

Online classes don't work that way.  They're extremely hands-on and require the professor teaching to course to be on-call pretty much all the time.  My university generally caps enrollment in online classes at 35 students or so, and we're pretty normal in the regard.  There's just no way for a faculty member to keep up with his or her students in a class much larger than that while still providing an educational experience comparable to a bricks-and-mortar class.  

So department chairs and deans have a choice.  Do I want to put that quick-witted and virile economist in front of 250 students in a face-to-face class, or should I put him in an online class with only 35 students?  If the per-student tuition were the same, nobody would ever offer online classes.  There's no financial incentive to do so.

That's why online classes are pretty much universally more expensive than face-to-face classes.  The cost of instruction is way higher.

I get what you are saying but why are 250 live students less time consuming than 35 online?   Also, why can't we have the lecture for that days lesson taped, which can be shown to any and all online classes for that class and have the professor available at the end to answer questions?  I know this doesn't apply to all classes but many it would.  TIA.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Can you explain this to me?  It seems counterintuitive and my wife is having the exact opposite experience.  What is required to be "extremely hands on" that one wouldn't have to do in a standard setting and why do they have to be "on-call pretty much all the time"?  Maybe it's the way it's implemented?

I received my teaching certification through a Jesuit university that is a 2 hours drive away. My advisor taught our statistics class and a class on tests and measurements. We had texts, with assigned reading and quizzes and exams that had to be completed by a certain time. But, "lectures" were held on a message board. Along with our reading assignments, we usually were assigned topics to post about each day.

I was required to start at least one topic/ask a question and respond to at least three posts outside of the topic that I started. This was a class of 15 students. At a minimum, my advisor was reading at least 60 messages. For an advisor to do that every day...that's a lot of work.

I loved his final exam for the tests and measurements class: 2/3 of the grade was from the course's cumulative final exam that I created, and 1/3 of the final was based on my score of an exam created by a fellow classmate...assigned at random.

 

[IC FBGCav]

In the end but why are live classes now 3 to 4 times more than 30 years ago?

I mean besides 250 dollar text books, wait, do they still use books?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Public and private universities are run like for-profit businesses.  Their revenues are largely funded by nearly unlimited unsecured debt, backed by the government and freely given to their customers, that is non-discharageable in bankruptcy.  Why on earth would you expect prices to go down, ever, regardless of changes in costs due to technology or otherwise?