How would you like a graduate degree for $100?

[mmix]

http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-would-...degree-for-100

Getting a master’s degree might cost just $100 from education startup Udacity, says Google Fellow and Udacity co-founder Sebastian Thrun.

However, “It’s pretty obvious that degrees will go away,” Thrun says. “The idea of a degree is that you spend a fixed time right after high school to educate yourself for the rest of your career. But *careers change so much over a lifetime now that this model isn’t valid anymore.”

Udacity currently offers 11 courses, for free, in subjects such as computer programming, statistics and mathematics, plus a robocar programmer’s workshop with Thrun himself. Thrun says the service will always have “a free path,” but the idea is eventually to charge for certificates or enhanced features such as chat.

[billybob linux]

I think he has a valid point, having a degree no longer gives you the keys to the kingdom when it comes to a career. The perception and value of a degree has definitely changed over the years in my view, it seems to me that these days many degrees are awarded to those students whose parents are informed, connected and wealthy enough to get them through the system and not through merit and hard work, then maybe that was always the case to some extent but maybe more so now.

I don't wish to downgrade the efforts of those who really have made the effort and have the drive initiative and academic ability to obtain their qualifications (but they would do well in any case), but you cannot help thinking that there is an elitist agenda creeping in which could result in poorer or at least less wealthy but gifted students being gradually shut out of the system.

New technology, social networking and the global connectivity of the internet making lower cost high quality further education and degrees being available to a much wider audience including those with the ability but not the wealth, sounds good to me, but even if the academic value might be the same, going for a job and saying I got my degree from an internet based college or university might not have the same impact as saying Harvard or Oxford or whatever, but that is an attitude thing that will probably change if it's not already changing that is.

[droidhacker]

It is all about where the degree is from, what it is in, what it takes to get it. Not all degrees are equal. A "degree" purchased on the internet has zero value. A degree in whacking off has zero value.

A degree that takes hard work and intelligence has a lot of value, regardless of the specific subject it is in. It means that you have the determination and intelligence to make yourself a better person, rather than that you know technical information from that subject. Its what differentiates a degree from a diploma. A diploma means that you have certain skills. A legitimate degree means that you know how to OBTAIN skills.

[Gareth Jones]

The problem I think stems from that degrees have come to be seen as standard qualifications for working, much like A-levels and GCSEs. (For Americans etc., GCSEs are the standard 16-year-old finishing-secondary-school exams in the UK, and A-levels are taken at 18 when finishing sixth-form college – I don't know what the US equivalents are called but I image it's much the same deal.) The contents of the degree are now less important for most jobs than the presence of a degree at all, and to a lesser extent, the title and institution that awarded it. A degree is often viewed as just a commodity qualification that anyone who isn't stupid is just expected to have, at least below a certain age. It's become merely an extension of schooling, and employers are finally starting to question the value of that.

Coming from an academic/research background, where degrees are still supposed to have a purpose in qualifying students with actual knowledge, mental discipline, and research skills, this has had a negative effect on the teaching of degrees, their titles and contents, the attitude of those taking them, the funding situation, and the behaviour of universities increasingly behaving as profit-driven businesses. As a relatively recent physics graduate from a highly-regarded university, I often felt I was always having to work against the assumptions of many of those above and around me, who assumed that the purpose of the degree was to get a high-paid job in the finance sector or whatever. The teaching and assessment methods really didn't suit my way of working, and it wasn't until I got into actual research that I felt that my work reflected my abilities. Even then there are artificial obstacles imposed by people who don't seem to understand the purpose...

[RupertPupkin]

Reminds me of a scene in the movie Adventureland:

Sue: What are you majoring in?
Joel: Russian literature and Slavic languages.
Sue: Oh wow, that's pretty interesting. What career track is that?
Joel: Cabby, hot dog vendor, marijuana delivery guy. The world is my oyster.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by billybob linux

I think he has a valid point, having a degree no longer gives you the keys to the kingdom when it comes to a career.

Your point seems to be wrong. Additional education CLEARLY decreases your chance of unemployment and increases your income.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

There is another recent study floating around where ~95% of students in engineering, science and med/nursing get jobs in their field, while the average for all student in this economy is only ~50%.

Yes it's clear that brighter individuals will do better than average individuals, however even the brightest HS grad cannot be expected to develop the skills of a well educated chemist, pharmacist, doctor, dentist, nurse or engineer. It takes many lifetimes of experience to develop concepts like the Shannon theorem or basic metabolic chemistry. No individual can be expected to develop these ideas without being exposed to them during education.

If you gaze at u-tube "free energy" schemes w/ its a good example of what happens when reasonably bright people are ignorant of basic physics - conservation of energy or laws of thermodynamics are common.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHVBu...feature=relmfu
This is a great example of what happens when we lack education. These people fail to understand our hard-won historically acquired knowledge, so they are doomed repeating silly errors that were solved 2 centuries ago.

The perception and value of a degree has definitely changed over the years in my view, it seems to me that these days many degrees are awarded to those students whose parents are informed, connected and wealthy enough to ...

I smell the politics of envy and a touch of paranoia in your comments. I don't believe that parental influence is significant. Got evidence ?

... but you cannot help thinking that there is an elitist agenda creeping in which could result in poorer or at least less wealthy but gifted students being gradually shut out of the system.

Politics of envy ? There is nothing "elitist" about it; it's merely expensive b/c we don't have a competitive free market and we don't measure the product. It's certain that money is a factor in obtaining a higher education in the US, but grades are far more important.

New technology, social networking and the global connectivity of the internet making lower cost high quality further education and degrees being available to a much wider audience ...

It's a good idea. And there are some good efforts to make some sorts of education available online. I think this site has some fabulous courses that cover grade-school through junior college level topics nicely.
http://www.khanacademy.org/
Then of course MIT has a small set of vid courses available and the syllabi for many more.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/

Originally Posted by droidhacker

It is all about where the degree is from, what it is in, what it takes to get it. Not all degrees are equal. A "degree" purchased on the internet has zero value. A degree in whacking off has zero value.

No it's not ALL about the reputation. We've all seen dud individuals with great looking degree credentials. The solution is to measure the product/student, not the program or school reputation.

A degree that takes hard work and intelligence .... A legitimate degree means that you know how to OBTAIN skills.

It doesn't mean they know how to obtain skills; it represents work discipline which is only one of several virtues needed to obtain skills.

Originally Posted by Gareth Jones

The problem I think stems from that degrees have come to be seen as standard qualifications for working, much like A-levels and GCSEs. (For Americans etc., GCSEs are the standard 16-year-old finishing-secondary-school exams in the UK, and A-levels are taken at 18 when finishing sixth-form college – I don't know what the US equivalents are called but I image it's much the same deal.)

I don't think our system is very close. We have 12 years of free publicly funded education. Elementary school (grades 1-5 , 6-11yo roughly), middle school (6-8 ,~12-14yo) and high school(9-12, ~14-18yo). There is usually no differentiation in studies in grades 1-8. In grades 9-12 there is sometimes a modestly different set of courses for those who intend to attend colleges or universities, but its often not much. There may be a little more practical oriented course work for those who aren't following an academic path.

In reality the differentiated work in grades 9-12 is pretty ineffective. Many students require remedial course work once they get to college. Many going into trades need to attend a 2 year college or trade school at their own expense to study construction or welding or ....

It's my understanding (and I could be very wrong ) that in the UK and Germany that around age 13 kids are pushed into a academic or toward trades, and in the case of trades they're involved in work/study programs with industry quickly.

-------

In the US both public and private colleges and universities offer 4 year degree programs. State (meaning the 50 states) operate public universities where the average annual tuition is currently $7k per year. That's not too bad. Privately operated tuition&fees cost ~$30kyr on average. Board and books add to those figures.

However there is a huge caveat; students can get financial aid, scholarships and government subsidized loans. The financial aid is a very odd scheme where the parents file a federal form listing income and assets and the university uses this to determine the level of aid available. This is a bit like going to the bakery and paying $1 for a loaf of bread if you are poor, and $4 for the same loaf if you are well off. This destroys any free-market pretense.

There is a recent trend in the US for parents to send their kids to far less expensive '2 year colleges' aka 'junior colleges' and then they can often matriculate to 4-year program at a conventional college/univ for an additional 2 years.

---


My FEELING is that the US education system is pretty badly broken. In K-12 the stint is too long for the value, and there is insufficient specialization. It should probably be compressed to 10 years or even 9 ,and then the academic path should extend with a '2 year college' type program where generic college coursework is emphasized. The non-academic path should involve some sort of work/study program.

The cost of university education is insane primarily because there is no competition and no way to rationally measure the product. The lack of competition comes from the 'funny money' means of assessing the cost. If we measured the students, then we might for example find out that a $40k/yr Perdue engineering education produces no measurably better product that an $8k/yr UofMich engineering plan (I' m not suggesting this is true). If that was known it would immediately impact employers hiring decisions and student's school decisions, and we'd have fair competition where today none exists.

---

...A degree is often viewed as just a commodity qualification that anyone who isn't stupid is just expected to have, at least below a certain age. ...

I'd replace "isn't stupid" with "isn't undisciplined". A relatively dumb but disciplined person can get a degree far more easily than a bright but undisciplined one.

Coming from an academic/research background, where degrees are still supposed to have a purpose in qualifying students with actual knowledge, mental discipline, and research skills, this has had a negative effect on the teaching of degrees, their titles and contents, the attitude of those taking them, the funding situation, and the behaviour of universities increasingly behaving as profit-driven businesses. As a relatively recent physics graduate from a highly-regarded university, I often felt I was always having to work against the assumptions of many of those above and around me, who assumed that the purpose of the degree was to get a high-paid job in the finance sector or whatever. ...

I'm afraid my physics degrees have been gathering dust for a few decades. I think i understand your point, but my opinion is that it isn't the schools seeking profit that is the core problem (here at least). It's the attempt to convert incoming students only into financially successful workers. There is a lot of important research that is too distantly related to commercial application to ever create a job. So I suppose the question is, should we split higher education programs into a "commercial path" vs "research path ?". Or is coursework selection sufficient ?

[droidhacker]

Originally Posted by stevea

No it's not ALL about the reputation. We've all seen dud individuals with great looking degree credentials. The solution is to measure the product/student, not the program or school reputation.

WITH RESPECT TO THE DEGREE.
Of course the PERSON has more to do with it, but we aren't discussing PEOPLE, we're discussing DEGREES.

It doesn't mean they know how to obtain skills; it represents work discipline which is only one of several virtues needed to obtain skills.

Discipline alone doesn't get you a valuable degree. It might get you a technical degree, which is not much different from a college diploma, and it certainly stops at undergrad level. You can't regurgiate yourself through a PhD thesis.