What do you think will change in online (and face-to-face) education?

[Caracal]

The problem with bundling is that is allows the decisions makers to impose a subsidy for their pet rpojects on everyone.  Cable bundles would include a few popular channels plus a whole bunch of really niche things. Libertarians oppose all kionds of taxes for this reason. At least with governements, if they spend money on programs most people think are frivilous voters can boot them out of office. However in an institution, students get no such say over what their bundled fees subsidize. The employees who make those choices are untouchable.

Yeah, geez, if I don't drive down some street why do I have to pay for a traffic light there. And if I don't have a kid who needs a playground?

That's my point about the difference between a government and some other organization. If a government goes off in a direction that doesn't connect with a majority of voters, that government may not get re-elected. As for traffic lights and playgrounds, as long as a government makes voters understand the common good, then actions for the common good will get support. But the more a specific action benefits a very specific group at the expense of everyone else, the harder sell it will be. But a private organization doesn't have the same need to "sell" those narrow interests and can just impose them.

It just seems like unbundling is a weird and unhelpful model to apply to colleges. It would be hard to imagine how you could run any institution with people only paying for the exact services they use. That model applies only when you buy discrete items, but you can't really separate out the discrete items in college because the argument for most services is that they make the institution as a whole better.  Most colleges have free bus service on campus paid for by everyone. If you "unbundled" this, I suppose only people who used the buses would be charged? But maybe your professor needs to use the bus to get to class on time, or the other members of your class. Doesn't it matter to your experience as a student that your professor isn't going to be late every day?

Now, if you want to make the argument that some of the things bundled in a college experience in the US don't provide enough value to be worth it, or that some of them are actively bad for the experience of many students, or that the overall costs of some of these things are helping to make college less affordable that's totally reasonable position, but it has nothing to do with "unbundling." By using that term, all you're doing is confusing the issue and encouraging the idea that taking classes at a college ought to resemble buying things at Target. If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it. You're just making a claim that this is a bad thing to spend everyone's money on.

[marshwiggle]

The problem with bundling is that is allows the decisions makers to impose a subsidy for their pet rpojects on everyone.  Cable bundles would include a few popular channels plus a whole bunch of really niche things. Libertarians oppose all kionds of taxes for this reason. At least with governements, if they spend money on programs most people think are frivilous voters can boot them out of office. However in an institution, students get no such say over what their bundled fees subsidize. The employees who make those choices are untouchable.

Yeah, geez, if I don't drive down some street why do I have to pay for a traffic light there. And if I don't have a kid who needs a playground?

That's my point about the difference between a government and some other organization. If a government goes off in a direction that doesn't connect with a majority of voters, that government may not get re-elected. As for traffic lights and playgrounds, as long as a government makes voters understand the common good, then actions for the common good will get support. But the more a specific action benefits a very specific group at the expense of everyone else, the harder sell it will be. But a private organization doesn't have the same need to "sell" those narrow interests and can just impose them.

It just seems like unbundling is a weird and unhelpful model to apply to colleges. It would be hard to imagine how you could run any institution with people only paying for the exact services they use. That model applies only when you buy discrete items, but you can't really separate out the discrete items in college because the argument for most services is that they make the institution as a whole better.  Most colleges have free bus service on campus paid for by everyone. If you "unbundled" this, I suppose only people who used the buses would be charged? But maybe your professor needs to use the bus to get to class on time, or the other members of your class. Doesn't it matter to your experience as a student that your professor isn't going to be late every day?

This is pretty much exactly what the Ontario government legislated a few years ago. Student fees, which are distinct from tuition, have to "opt-out"able. So if you don't use the gym, you don't have to pay an "athletic fee". If you don't want to pay for the new "student centre" that the student government wants to build, you can say "no".  It means that services actually need to get lots of buy-in, rather than just being the acid dream of the current student government.

Now, if you want to make the argument that some of the things bundled in a college experience in the US don't provide enough value to be worth it, or that some of them are actively bad for the experience of many students, or that the overall costs of some of these things are helping to make college less affordable that's totally reasonable position, but it has nothing to do with "unbundling." By using that term, all you're doing is confusing the issue and encouraging the idea that taking classes at a college ought to resemble buying things at Target. If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it.

In this case "the school" consists of both the university and the student union. Student union initiatives are not part of the university's mission, and so it makes sense that students don't have to be part of them to get their education.

[Caracal]

The problem with bundling is that is allows the decisions makers to impose a subsidy for their pet rpojects on everyone.  Cable bundles would include a few popular channels plus a whole bunch of really niche things. Libertarians oppose all kionds of taxes for this reason. At least with governements, if they spend money on programs most people think are frivilous voters can boot them out of office. However in an institution, students get no such say over what their bundled fees subsidize. The employees who make those choices are untouchable.

Yeah, geez, if I don't drive down some street why do I have to pay for a traffic light there. And if I don't have a kid who needs a playground?

That's my point about the difference between a government and some other organization. If a government goes off in a direction that doesn't connect with a majority of voters, that government may not get re-elected. As for traffic lights and playgrounds, as long as a government makes voters understand the common good, then actions for the common good will get support. But the more a specific action benefits a very specific group at the expense of everyone else, the harder sell it will be. But a private organization doesn't have the same need to "sell" those narrow interests and can just impose them.

It just seems like unbundling is a weird and unhelpful model to apply to colleges. It would be hard to imagine how you could run any institution with people only paying for the exact services they use. That model applies only when you buy discrete items, but you can't really separate out the discrete items in college because the argument for most services is that they make the institution as a whole better.  Most colleges have free bus service on campus paid for by everyone. If you "unbundled" this, I suppose only people who used the buses would be charged? But maybe your professor needs to use the bus to get to class on time, or the other members of your class. Doesn't it matter to your experience as a student that your professor isn't going to be late every day?

This is pretty much exactly what the Ontario government legislated a few years ago. Student fees, which are distinct from tuition, have to "opt-out"able. So if you don't use the gym, you don't have to pay an "athletic fee". If you don't want to pay for the new "student centre" that the student government wants to build, you can say "no".  It means that services actually need to get lots of buy-in, rather than just being the acid dream of the current student government.

Well, again, this isn't actually about ending bundling. Everyone's tuition is still paying for all kinds of things like the college infrastructure, libraries, technology, lab equipment and a million other things that people can't simply opt out of. It sounds like someone has successfully made an argument that certain other sorts of things, like gyms, or student activity centers aren't central to the college's mission and have to be funded differently. You can argue about whether that is a good or bad thing, but it doesn't really have much to do with bundling.

It would be like if my town wanted to spend tax money to build an ice palace free to everyone. I wouldn't be making an "anti-bundling" argument if I said that this was an inappropriate use of tax dollars and that amusement parks were something that should be built and paid for privately. I'm not saying everyone should have to opt in to everything, I'm just saying that it would be better to have tax dollars go towards things that provide important benefits to everyone, not unnecessary flashy projects.

[dismalist]

 "If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

[Wahoo Redux]

God help me, but I find myself (at least initially) in agreement with Marshwiggle.

Cost is the center piece of almost every criticism of college these days.  Any reasonable thing to reduce cost should be on the table.  If the professor wants to be on time for class, have hu get to the bus station for an earlier run after opting into the service.  Certainly this opt in / opt out is going to create more administrative work, but it would at least show a good-faith effort on the part of colleges.

The same could be true with these auto-enroll online textbooks.  The students I've talked to hate these things, both the service itself and the fact that they were forced to pay for them.  It was a smart move on the part of the text-book publishers that many of us fell for.

[marshwiggle]

God help me, but I find myself (at least initially) in agreement with Marshwiggle.

It's OK; I won't think you've lost your principles.

Cost is the center piece of almost every criticism of college these days.  Any reasonable thing to reduce cost should be on the table.  If the professor wants to be on time for class, have hu get to the bus station for an earlier run after opting into the service.  Certainly this opt in / opt out is going to create more administrative work, but it would at least show a good-faith effort on the part of colleges.

The same could be true with these auto-enroll online textbooks.  The students I've talked to hate these things, both the service itself and the fact that they were forced to pay for them.  It was a smart move on the part of the text-book publishers that many of us fell for.

At our university, they decided a few years ago that instructors using those online subscription texts with the accompanying testing software had to provide a free alternative to students to replace that part of the assessment.  That could include something like a higher weight on tests, as I recall, but the point was students weren't forced to pay for it. (One issue in that case is that the money goes to third parties; i.e. the students are having to pay an outside company in order to complete their education, which is definitely ethically debatable.)

[Caracal]

"If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

Again, this only makes sense to you because you don't like these things. I suspect you'd feel rather differently if we were talking about mental health services or library facilities.

[marshwiggle]

"If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

Again, this only makes sense to you because you don't like these things. I suspect you'd feel rather differently if we were talking about mental health services or library facilities.

Why are those different? Speaking of libraries, the traditional argument is that faculty rely heavily on libraries for their service to research. If faculty didn't feel the library was required, I wouldn't feel any great need to defend it on principle. And as for mental health services, those probably vary greatly by institution based on student population served, other community resources, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there are campuses where there are few of any type of health services based on these factors.

FWIW, for several years now faculty and staff here (even full time) don't get free parking or access to the athletic facilities. We pay for it. Not a big deal; each person decides whether it's worth it or not.

[dismalist]

"If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

Again, this only makes sense to you because you don't like these things. I suspect you'd feel rather differently if we were talking about mental health services or library facilities.

No, no, it's not about me. It's about everybody else. People differ. Some will want to opt out of athletics, others not. As the Canadian example upthread makes clear, there is other stuff one can opt out of.

Mental health services are insurance which everybody should have [must have in civilized countries, so in the US, college is a substitute for the government], and library services are strictly required for an education. A swimming pool is not.

[tuxthepenguin]

"If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

For many small schools, athletics is the best recruiting tool. Dig into the numbers sometime for some of the DIII schools on percentage of students competing in athletics. The ability to compete at the "college" level is keeping many of them open.

For DI schools, athletics is also a recruiting tool, used to show that students are at a "big time" school, unlike their classmates that went off to CC or a place with lesser athletics.

I've never dug into DII athletics very deeply, but their budgets aren't very big and they can get significant donations, so I don't know what kind of subsidy they're providing to the athletics department.

Your argument only works if the added enrollment, donations,  andfree advertising don't provide enough benefits. It's not as simple as saying students can opt out. How do they "opt out" of marketing efforts?

[dismalist]

Absolutely. Schools can specialize more. If no one opts out of athletics at an athletic school, there is no problem.

[Wahoo Redux]

"If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

Again, this only makes sense to you because you don't like these things. I suspect you'd feel rather differently if we were talking about mental health services or library facilities.

Weeeelllll...I don't think those are the same things. 

The library is a central tool of education and serves the whole campus.  Mental health services are like any medical service that caters to people who need help.

Note, of course, that this is a complex scenario, but, as much as I like sports, I don't think you can reasonably separate the library and counseling services from the school's mission.  You can with football, and I love college football.

Sports are entertainment which, in college, only a very few participate in and which costs an inordinate amount of money for what is gained, usually footed by the students without their say-so.

I love watching college sports.  I very seldom watch professional sports.  I loved doing sports when I was younger.  I think sports teach a lot of helpful life principles (really!) and are good for your body and just plain good for you.  And they are entertaining as well.  And if we were not facing a mass extinction event, I would be all for college sports. 

I concede what Tux is saying to some extent, but I'd like to see some sort of hard numbers about these things.  Would students really not attend college without the big game?  What percentage is willing to pay $900 or $1,200 or whatever a semester to subsidize the big glory sports?

We have a mass extinction event on the horizon.  We'd better not be Trumped on our preparedness.

[marshwiggle]

Absolutely. Schools can specialize more. If no one opts out of athletics at an athletic school, there is no problem.

Yes, that actually makes the case for it being optional. At the schools where it's a big recruiting tool, obviously most students would vote for it, since that's what they came for.

[spork]

The problem with bundling is that is allows the decisions makers to impose a subsidy for their pet rpojects on everyone.  Cable bundles would include a few popular channels plus a whole bunch of really niche things. Libertarians oppose all kionds of taxes for this reason. At least with governements, if they spend money on programs most people think are frivilous voters can boot them out of office. However in an institution, students get no such say over what their bundled fees subsidize. The employees who make those choices are untouchable.

Yeah, geez, if I don't drive down some street why do I have to pay for a traffic light there. And if I don't have a kid who needs a playground?

That's my point about the difference between a government and some other organization. If a government goes off in a direction that doesn't connect with a majority of voters, that government may not get re-elected. As for traffic lights and playgrounds, as long as a government makes voters understand the common good, then actions for the common good will get support. But the more a specific action benefits a very specific group at the expense of everyone else, the harder sell it will be. But a private organization doesn't have the same need to "sell" those narrow interests and can just impose them.

It just seems like unbundling is a weird and unhelpful model to apply to colleges. It would be hard to imagine how you could run any institution with people only paying for the exact services they use. That model applies only when you buy discrete items, but you can't really separate out the discrete items in college because the argument for most services is that they make the institution as a whole better.  Most colleges have free bus service on campus paid for by everyone. If you "unbundled" this, I suppose only people who used the buses would be charged? But maybe your professor needs to use the bus to get to class on time, or the other members of your class. Doesn't it matter to your experience as a student that your professor isn't going to be late every day?

This is pretty much exactly what the Ontario government legislated a few years ago. Student fees, which are distinct from tuition, have to "opt-out"able. So if you don't use the gym, you don't have to pay an "athletic fee". If you don't want to pay for the new "student centre" that the student government wants to build, you can say "no".  It means that services actually need to get lots of buy-in, rather than just being the acid dream of the current student government.

Now, if you want to make the argument that some of the things bundled in a college experience in the US don't provide enough value to be worth it, or that some of them are actively bad for the experience of many students, or that the overall costs of some of these things are helping to make college less affordable that's totally reasonable position, but it has nothing to do with "unbundling." By using that term, all you're doing is confusing the issue and encouraging the idea that taking classes at a college ought to resemble buying things at Target. If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it.

In this case "the school" consists of both the university and the student union. Student union initiatives are not part of the university's mission, and so it makes sense that students don't have to be part of them to get their education.

Similarly, universities across the world operate quite well without internally-funded athletic programs. The USA is the outlier, with the majority of money spent on intercollegiate athletics acting as a subsidy for monopolistic professional sports leagues formed of teams owned by billionaires.

[tuxthepenguin]

"If you think schools spend too much money on supporting expensive athletic programs, the solution isn't that students should be able to opt out of paying for it."

That is precisely the solution. For then, [many] schools will stop spending money on it, reduce their costs, and become cheaper.

Again, this only makes sense to you because you don't like these things. I suspect you'd feel rather differently if we were talking about mental health services or library facilities.

Weeeelllll...I don't think those are the same things. 

The library is a central tool of education and serves the whole campus.  Mental health services are like any medical service that caters to people who need help.

Note, of course, that this is a complex scenario, but, as much as I like sports, I don't think you can reasonably separate the library and counseling services from the school's mission.  You can with football, and I love college football.

Sports are entertainment which, in college, only a very few participate in and which costs an inordinate amount of money for what is gained, usually footed by the students without their say-so.

I love watching college sports.  I very seldom watch professional sports.  I loved doing sports when I was younger.  I think sports teach a lot of helpful life principles (really!) and are good for your body and just plain good for you.  And they are entertaining as well.  And if we were not facing a mass extinction event, I would be all for college sports. 

I concede what Tux is saying to some extent, but I'd like to see some sort of hard numbers about these things.  Would students really not attend college without the big game?  What percentage is willing to pay $900 or $1,200 or whatever a semester to subsidize the big glory sports?

We have a mass extinction event on the horizon.  We'd better not be Trumped on our preparedness.

I'm not going to argue that sports is good business for anyone other than the DIII schools with high athletic participation rates. I don't think there's any question it's good for them. I have a hard time believing it's worth is for many of the lower-tier DI schools. There are many days I wish we didn't have athletics.

My perspective is that it doesn't really make any difference. There are places where the athletics budget is trivial, so go there if that's what you want. If you "unbundle" they'll just raise tuition and other fees to compensate. The money has to come from somewhere, and students so far have been willing to pay for it.

Really all that matters is that we're putting out graduates that get good jobs. To the extent that athletics makes that possible, I'm all for it, even if the students pay a little extra.