| You can’t get a full undergrad or masters at either school based on your ability. You can get a “certificate” or some asterisked form of diploma, or you can enter the traditional applicant lotto where a significant number are rejected yet go on to do great work. The old lotto model is based on the legacy of having enough seats to put students into. Some newer programs, including one from MIT are experimenting with a scalable online model. You want a degree from us? Take some classes for a while, prove your ability, you could get in. The lotto application process besides being limited is imperfect in so many ways. The GMAT if I recall correctly correlates to success only around 65% of the time. It’s time for these elite schools to decide how important an issue brand dilution (maybe) is for them, and come out and be straight about how much they factor it into their strategy vs. limiting how many diplomas they grant based purely on scalability while maintaining quality. Ones a logistical problem. One is profit (endownmenrm prestige) motivated. Pick a side for the future. |
MIT has done a lot to expand access to content in the form of OpenCourseWare (https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm) and edX (https://www.edx.org/).
The issue you have identified is finding scalable method of accreditation. Other schools have certainly tested online-only degree programs and produced many graduates. As an alum, I do struggle with the question of, "would an online-only graduate be 'real' alum"? That's my own personal bias. I imagine the institute does think about brand dilution to some extent.
That said, while colleges may be gatekeepers to degrees, it is employers that require the degrees to get jobs. Why bother with degrees in the first place if the candidate can prove they have the necessary skills for a job despite not holding a degree?
I realize I'm deflecting, but it's worth pointing out that there are multiple parties in play here, not just universities—MIT or otherwise.