Covid-19 Response: Evidence of How Higher Ed Can Be Completely Restructured?

[Caracal]

6 weeks in?

• Zoom classes don't work. They aren't terrible on an emergency basis. Still, too much is missing from the in-class experience.

[. . . ]

What percent of last year's students will be able and willing to pay for the "in-class experience" next year? What's the number of potential students who have never been able or willing to pay for the "in-class experience"?

I'm confused. It costs the same amount and will next semester as well. I don't even understand what sort of model you're proposing. If students receive the same credit for online courses, why exactly are they supposed to pay less? There are larger issues of college cost, but you're engaging in weird technocratic fantasies about the magical and transformative benefits of unbundling.

The number of people under 18 who took AP exams or enrolled in college courses more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, and media reports suggest it has continued to increase since then. Generally it's far cheaper for students to earn college credit while in high school than at a four-year university. There's your unbundling, which makes college credit hours more affordable for the non-wealthy.

Is community college unbundling then? Students can use it in a very similar way to the way they can use AP courses. But, again, it's a weird buzzword, not an actual proposal.

[marshwiggle]

Because the value of the "in-class" experience has always been the "on-campus" experience, in which a student gets to leave their home environment, meet lots of new people, and come into adulthood with lots of other young adults.

We used to offer free college tuition for in-state universities, and generous financial aid to make sure everyone could afford to have this experience. You know, social mobility and all of that.

One of the effects of this year under covid may be to establish a dollar value for the "in-class" experience. Being able to quantify it as a portion of the entire cost would be very helpful.

And very dangerous to certain institutions, depending on what it turns out to be.

[Caracal]

Because the value of the "in-class" experience has always been the "on-campus" experience, in which a student gets to leave their home environment, meet lots of new people, and come into adulthood with lots of other young adults.

We used to offer free college tuition for in-state universities, and generous financial aid to make sure everyone could afford to have this experience. You know, social mobility and all of that.

One of the effects of this year under covid may be to establish a dollar value for the "in-class" experience. Being able to quantify it as a portion of the entire cost would be very helpful.

And very dangerous to certain institutions, depending on what it turns out to be.

Online classes aren't new. Unless they are part of some sort of separate distance education program, you pay the same amount for the credit hours. What exactly would be the mechanism by which this year would establish some different rate. The money that students save this year all involves things that they could opt out of regardless. Most college students attend places where there is no requirement to live on campus and lots of them don't.

[apl68]

Because the value of the "in-class" experience has always been the "on-campus" experience, in which a student gets to leave their home environment, meet lots of new people, and come into adulthood with lots of other young adults.

We used to offer free college tuition for in-state universities, and generous financial aid to make sure everyone could afford to have this experience. You know, social mobility and all of that.

One of the effects of this year under covid may be to establish a dollar value for the "in-class" experience. Being able to quantify it as a portion of the entire cost would be very helpful.

And very dangerous to certain institutions, depending on what it turns out to be.

Online classes aren't new. Unless they are part of some sort of separate distance education program, you pay the same amount for the credit hours. What exactly would be the mechanism by which this year would establish some different rate. The money that students save this year all involves things that they could opt out of regardless. Most college students attend places where there is no requirement to live on campus and lots of them don't.

Yes.  It's not as though it wasn't already common knowledge that commuting or taking classes online was less expensive than living on campus.  If anything, this year of not being able to have a normal campus experience is likely to convince many students of that experience's value.

Whether they'll be able to afford the old-fashioned on-campus experience in the future is another question.  We might see more students commuting and taking online classes in the future because they have to, not because they necessarily want to.

[marshwiggle]

Because the value of the "in-class" experience has always been the "on-campus" experience, in which a student gets to leave their home environment, meet lots of new people, and come into adulthood with lots of other young adults.

We used to offer free college tuition for in-state universities, and generous financial aid to make sure everyone could afford to have this experience. You know, social mobility and all of that.

One of the effects of this year under covid may be to establish a dollar value for the "in-class" experience. Being able to quantify it as a portion of the entire cost would be very helpful.

And very dangerous to certain institutions, depending on what it turns out to be.

Online classes aren't new. Unless they are part of some sort of separate distance education program, you pay the same amount for the credit hours. What exactly would be the mechanism by which this year would establish some different rate. The money that students save this year all involves things that they could opt out of regardless. Most college students attend places where there is no requirement to live on campus and lots of them don't.

It's not just about living on campus or not; even off campus students can come to parties, attend on-campus events, etc. When none of that is available the number of students who choose to proceed vs. the number who decide not to will give an indication of how big the "market" is for the education without any of the in-person experience. It has the potential to level the playing field between places offering similar programs but differing greatly in what amenities and experiences they offer. Under these circumstances, differences in tuition between institutions will potentially be much more favourable to cheaper places without lots of amenities but with good academic reputations. This is a different question than how many people in the past were interested specifically in online programs.

[ciao_yall]

Because the value of the "in-class" experience has always been the "on-campus" experience, in which a student gets to leave their home environment, meet lots of new people, and come into adulthood with lots of other young adults.

We used to offer free college tuition for in-state universities, and generous financial aid to make sure everyone could afford to have this experience. You know, social mobility and all of that.

One of the effects of this year under covid may be to establish a dollar value for the "in-class" experience. Being able to quantify it as a portion of the entire cost would be very helpful.

And very dangerous to certain institutions, depending on what it turns out to be.

Online classes aren't new. Unless they are part of some sort of separate distance education program, you pay the same amount for the credit hours. What exactly would be the mechanism by which this year would establish some different rate. The money that students save this year all involves things that they could opt out of regardless. Most college students attend places where there is no requirement to live on campus and lots of them don't.

It's not just about living on campus or not; even off campus students can come to parties, attend on-campus events, etc. When none of that is available the number of students who choose to proceed vs. the number who decide not to will give an indication of how big the "market" is for the education without any of the in-person experience. It has the potential to level the playing field between places offering similar programs but differing greatly in what amenities and experiences they offer. Under these circumstances, differences in tuition between institutions will potentially be much more favourable to cheaper places without lots of amenities but with good academic reputations. This is a different question than how many people in the past were interested specifically in online programs.

How sad is that? That we attempt to assign a dollar value to an important rite of passage for people entering the professional and educated classes.

[dismalist]

How sad is that? That we attempt to assign a dollar value to an important rite of passage for people entering the professional and educated classes.

There's no such thing as a free rite of passage. :-)

[marshwiggle]

How sad is that? That we attempt to assign a dollar value to an important rite of passage for people entering the professional and educated classes.

There's no such thing as a free rite of passage. :-)

And the very assumption that it is an important rite of passage begs for evidence to support that. Specifically, why is it important, and to whom? The "attempt to assign a dollar value" is looking for the answer as seen by students and their families, who have to pay for it,  not by academics and others who have a vested interest in trying to claim the value is as high as possible.

[spork]

How sad is that? That we attempt to assign a dollar value to an important rite of passage for people entering the professional and educated classes.

There's no such thing as a free rite of passage. :-)

And the very assumption that it is an important rite of passage begs for evidence to support that. Specifically, why is it important, and to whom? The "attempt to assign a dollar value" is looking for the answer as seen by students and their families, who have to pay for it,  not by academics and others who have a vested interest in trying to claim the value is as high as possible.

For much of the world, the norm is little to no "campus experience" as it been defined in the USA. 

[spork]

An inside view of the thin margins that exist for all but a few U.S. universities:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/10/16-weeks-and-5-days-university-arizona/616557/.

Got to keep the campus open to bring in tuition from out-of-state students.

[Aster]

Bleah. Arizona. One of the worst states in the U.S. for education. The state legislature gutted Higher Ed funding like a fish over a decade ago.

Arizona's state legislature has cut funding for the state's universities by more than half since the Great Recession, from $10,300 a student in 2008 to $4,800 a student last year. Arizona ranks 43rd in the nation in higher-education spending, per student.

[spork]

IHE op-ed writer uses the dreaded "unbundling":

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/10/06/benefits-academics-only-college-opinion.

[marshwiggle]

IHE op-ed writer uses the dreaded "unbundling":

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/10/06/benefits-academics-only-college-opinion.

A couple of fascinating quotations:

The new face of college necessitated by the pandemic has raised fundamental questions among significantly more people about whether traditional residential education is worth it.
...

Thus, debate is needed as to whether students and their families should have the option of attending a different sort of college -- one focused primarily upon academics
...
That a college or university would concentrate exclusively on academics and direct academic support services is not unprecedented internationally.

The fact that this is such radical thinking in the U.S. is kind of mind-boggling, since in most other places the "residential" aspect only exists to accomodate students who live far enough away for it to be a necessity. It's not the goal of the institution. (The one exception, perhaps, being religious institutions, where controlling all kinds of lifestyle factors is intentional.)

[Caracal]

IHE op-ed writer uses the dreaded "unbundling":

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/10/06/benefits-academics-only-college-opinion.

A couple of fascinating quotations:

The new face of college necessitated by the pandemic has raised fundamental questions among significantly more people about whether traditional residential education is worth it.
...

Thus, debate is needed as to whether students and their families should have the option of attending a different sort of college -- one focused primarily upon academics
...
That a college or university would concentrate exclusively on academics and direct academic support services is not unprecedented internationally.

The fact that this is such radical thinking in the U.S. is kind of mind-boggling, since in most other places the "residential" aspect only exists to accomodate students who live far enough away for it to be a necessity. It's not the goal of the institution. (The one exception, perhaps, being religious institutions, where controlling all kinds of lifestyle factors is intentional.)

A pretty large percentage of college students in the U.S go to schools where this is basically how it works. If you look at most major metro regional universities, usually half or more of the students are commuters. The ones who do live on campus probably are attracted to the social aspects, but it is also just about convenience.

[apl68]

IHE op-ed writer uses the dreaded "unbundling":

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/10/06/benefits-academics-only-college-opinion.

A couple of fascinating quotations:

The new face of college necessitated by the pandemic has raised fundamental questions among significantly more people about whether traditional residential education is worth it.
...

Thus, debate is needed as to whether students and their families should have the option of attending a different sort of college -- one focused primarily upon academics
...
That a college or university would concentrate exclusively on academics and direct academic support services is not unprecedented internationally.

The fact that this is such radical thinking in the U.S. is kind of mind-boggling, since in most other places the "residential" aspect only exists to accomodate students who live far enough away for it to be a necessity. It's not the goal of the institution. (The one exception, perhaps, being religious institutions, where controlling all kinds of lifestyle factors is intentional.)

It's worth remembering that the U.S. covers a huge settled area.  The population hasn't historically been concentrated in a handful of metropolitan areas.  Even today, a lot of students don't live within easy commuting distance of any college.  The U.S. also has historically had a much greater variety of higher education to choose from--you might live a long way from your school of choice.

Still...you're right about Americans focusing a lot on the residential aspect of college life.  It's widespread conventional wisdom that going off to college, instead of commuting to whatever happens to be nearest, is a desirable experience in and of itself.  I lived within easy commuting distance of Alma Mater.  But since I won a scholarship that included room and board, my parents encouraged me to live on campus and participate in campus life.  Alma Mater is a church-affiliated school, so they did figure I'd meet with good influences there.