$9k degree

[Mobius]

Besides the cost, what do recipients of a bachelor's degree in general studies get? What types of skills are these graduates learning?

https://www.deseret.com/2021/5/2/22403717/public-university-bachelors-degree-tuition-9000-southern-utah-university-suu-cedar-city

[lightning]

Besides the cost, what do recipients of a bachelor's degree in general studies get? What types of skills are these graduates learning?

https://www.deseret.com/2021/5/2/22403717/public-university-bachelors-degree-tuition-9000-southern-utah-university-suu-cedar-city

The students in these programs are not going for the skill acquisition. They are not there to really learn anything, for that matter. They are jumping through the hoops, in order to get the relatively reuptable paper credential. That's it and nothing more.

[Hegemony]

The article doesn't say anything about the quality of the teaching or the degree of rigor, and that's the key to the question. I wouldn't say that being inexpensive automatically translates into low-quality teaching. Our local community college is inexpensive and those instructors are incredible teachers.

As for "General Studies," most public universities offer a degree that's something like this. A broad array of courses instead of I had the usual elitist tendency to dismiss it too. Then I got into a habit where, whenever I meet someone in a high position or an enviable job, I ask them what they majored in, in college. To my surprise, a whole lot of them majored in General Studies. Lawyers. Heads of arts organizations. People who work with refugees. Who knew?

So whether this particular degree is worthwhile — we'll see. But I wouldn't say it's inevitable.

[marshwiggle]

From the article:

The key to the program is "overload." That's the term higher education uses to describe paying overtime. Faculty members can make additional money by agreeing to teach an online speedway class as an overload. The cost to the university is minimal and the professor has extra pizza money.

I'm guessing that will appeal to faculty who already teach a course online, so this version will just leverage their existing infrastructure. I'd be curious to know how much overload pays per student.

[Wahoo Redux]

If it's too good to be true it's probably too good to be true.

I am sure this is above board, but it sounds like a McDegree like the other Phoenixs of the world.

The one of two comments on the story reads, "Turning SUU into the Costco of education." 

I've been spending a bit of time (which I do not have) researching where America stands in world education.  It's interesting.  Despite the Greek drama that goes on anytime someone mentions cost, ROI, outcomes, gen eds, tenure etc. America is educationally sound.  And this seems like a serious dilution to me.  We have overload teaching for beer money----how well can this possibly go?

Then again, what do I know?  If this is what we want from an education, so be it.  I understand the appeal and the need for a $9K degree.  It just seems like a move to turn higher ed into a bargain basement product, paper for the sake of having a paper.

[lightning]

Since most universities can no longer differentiate through and with online programs, they can only differentiate through competitive pricing. It's now a race to the bottom.

[Aster]

This "not degree" is incomplete. The people who created it only have (at best) only a partial understanding of the Higher Education mission. And it is most certainly not the mere completion of academic credits that get reported on a transcript. There is no meaningful access or allocation to the enrichment and experiential components that are part of the standard bachelor's degree. Notwithstanding the previously mentioned liabilities in completing a degree with no professional major (which is why I rightly call it a "not degree", any graduates from it will find themselves more akin to a community college transfer student in overall experience and academic attainment than they would with anyone who graduated with a full and complete bachelor's degree experience.

As lightning put it, this is a race to the bottom, and an embarrassment to Higher Education.

[marshwiggle]

I've been spending a bit of time (which I do not have) researching where America stands in world education.  It's interesting.  Despite the Greek drama that goes on anytime someone mentions cost, ROI, outcomes, gen eds, tenure etc. America is educationally sound.  And this seems like a serious dilution to me.  We have overload teaching for beer money----how well can this possibly go?

Then again, what do I know?  If this is what we want from an education, so be it.  I understand the appeal and the need for a $9K degree.  It just seems like a move to turn higher ed into a bargain basement product, paper for the sake of having a paper.

If

• Higher education should not be exclusively "job training"
• "General education" is a vital part of education
• Disciplines with a low number of majors are often in danger of elimination, despite their value

then how is this not a good thing? Especially if, as I suggested, the profs to whom it will most appeal is those who are already teaching online courses, in which case the quality of this offering should be comparable to their regular online offering?

As many have pointed out, many jobs that did not require a degree in the past now do so, without specifying any particular degree. What would this degree be lacking that would make it fail to provide what employers expect from an unspecified degree?

It seems to me the onus is on the biggest promoters of "general education" to explain why a degree which is, in essence, nothing but "general education", isn't a good idea.

[secundem_artem]

Yawn.  It's been done faster and cheaper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR8hKgzgDNs

[apl68]

The article doesn't say anything about the quality of the teaching or the degree of rigor, and that's the key to the question. I wouldn't say that being inexpensive automatically translates into low-quality teaching. Our local community college is inexpensive and those instructors are incredible teachers.

As for "General Studies," most public universities offer a degree that's something like this. A broad array of courses instead of I had the usual elitist tendency to dismiss it too. Then I got into a habit where, whenever I meet someone in a high position or an enviable job, I ask them what they majored in, in college. To my surprise, a whole lot of them majored in General Studies. Lawyers. Heads of arts organizations. People who work with refugees. Who knew?

So whether this particular degree is worthwhile — we'll see. But I wouldn't say it's inevitable.

I would really like to think that they've found a way to deliver a worthwhile program for a very good cost.  But it sure is hard not to suspect that there's an awful lot of corner-cutting involved.  Especially since it's online-only, which means there's going to be high overhead for software and tech support and thus even less left over for instruction.  I envision instructors being mostly adjuncts with (maybe) relevant MAs facilitating canned courses where most of the grading is automated.

I'm curious to see what the course offerings are.  Apparently there's a standard set of courses totaling 120 hours that everybody is expected to take, with no electives.  Are there any links anywhere to a course list?

[Mobius]

My concern is not that these degrees exist, because many institutions offer this. Some even offer generic liberal arts master's degrees that are even more dubious. SUU's model won't be that unique in Utah in a few years as Utah Valley and Dixie State compete in that space.

SUU is going to find itself struggling as it competition heats up for bargain degrees. Eventually, some schools are going to also hit back at this by marketing their online programs as "real" degrees.

I couldn't find a course list. I suspect it varies based on course availability each term. You take what is offered.

[marshwiggle]

I would really like to think that they've found a way to deliver a worthwhile program for a very good cost.  But it sure is hard not to suspect that there's an awful lot of corner-cutting involved.  Especially since it's online-only, which means there's going to be high overhead for software and tech support and thus even less left over for instruction. 

But this was my point above; if the faculty are going to be teaching it as overload, then the most obvious benefit will be to people who are already teaching a "normal" online section of it. In that case, all of the infrastructure is already paid for by the "normal" course.

The question becomes, for what marginal pay per student would it be worth it for faculty to do this? Would the email, grading, and administration per student be worthwhile for $100?

[Hibush]

I couldn't find a course list. I suspect it varies based on course availability each term. You take what is offered.

It could be the same business model for supply anagment as the super-discount or standby airline tickets. Students are assigned to the leftover spaces once the real students have registered. The student may not be able to plan a curriculum anyway, so being assigned to arbitrary classes doesn't hurt them. (Maybe Spotify is the business model to go for on the consumer end?)

[wareagle]

A quick check of their website indicates that classes are offered on 7-week terms.  For fall, there are two terms - one with eight classes, one with seven.  Both offer the Student Success Strategies and Capstone, so class selection is severely limited.

[fishbrains]

From the article:

The key to the program is "overload." That's the term higher education uses to describe paying overtime. Faculty members can make additional money by agreeing to teach an online speedway class as an overload. The cost to the university is minimal and the professor has extra pizza money.

I'm guessing that will appeal to faculty who already teach a course online, so this version will just leverage their existing infrastructure. I'd be curious to know how much overload pays per student.

This part of the article rankled a bit. I don't work this job for f*cking "pizza money." This is how I pay the bills.

In my college's system, full-time faculty receive adjunct pay for overloads, not a percentage of their salary. I love online teaching, but teaching an accelerated online course like this for reduced pay doesn't appeal to me at all. My guess is that full-time faculty will bail on this once it's not so new and shiny. Or there will be some serious arm-twisting going on.

Anyway, all this ain't good, but it's not surprising.