This one comes up often:
I think the government should just give free or extremely cheap online/TV/distance education using such material for undergrad studies.
THAT'S how you fess out the cream of the crop. Not this Ivy League nonsense where you have to compete for limited spots. Fuck that. Let the people self-select without the hindrance of money and tradition.
They really ought to let me run this country.
Do you really think the government could offer online education that was challenging and selective?
No matter how you introduced it, within years (if not faster) it would morph from "education for all" to "degrees for all"
July 16th, 2007 11:31pm
Doesn't have to be selective. Use Europe's Open University as an example. Let everybody in. But don't lower the standard for grading. You can get in if you have the motivation, but you have to stay motivated to complete the program.
I can view the nanohub links that I tried (lecture notes and webcast). It may have been a temporary glitch, try again now.
July 17th, 2007 12:18am
"but you have to stay motivated to complete the program."
That's what I meant by selective (though I worded it poorly) - that the program would be selective about who graduates/gets good grades/etc.
Of course, if it's set up so that there's no grading and anyone who completes 40 courses gets a diploma, that diploma won't be very well respected (because it doesn't help employers in their whac-a-mole "get rid of resumes" efforts)
July 17th, 2007 10:15am
July 17th, 2007 10:16am
I don't see any reason why teachers would be motivated to just pass people.
In fact, because of funding limitations, there would be more incentive to get rid of people sucking up resources.