[TrackerFF]

Why does online education suck?

When I went to university, the first week we received the syllabus, and date for final examination. Lectures were some old professors pretty much just doing book recitals in a large auditorium - little to no interaction with the students. If you had questions, that's what the TAs were for.

Any actual learning, you had to do in the library or study halls - and hopefully join a reading/study group. But the vast majority of students just showed up to lectures (if that even), and studied the course material on their own.

Pretty much what every large college / university looks like. And to be completely honest, I don't see why that can't be done online. Some of the core classes today have thousands of students at the largest schools.

When I took my MBA at a much smaller (in terms of student mass) school, it was completely different. But that was due to the much smaller number of students, and more professors, who had a much closer connection to the students. For that type of education - and with that type of infrastructure, I do agree that getting people physically to the school can help. But that's more by design.

[redczar]

Very few students watch lectures online. There is massive amounts of cheating in online courses. Almost no online course requires proctored exams. Online education is overall worse, in terms of actual learning, than face-to-face courses.

[zer8k]

This might shock your worldview but cheating is absolutely rampant in STEM programs in person too. I still remember the corrupt graduate students who would circulate exam answers and/or take money to get copies of exams. Tutoring services range from valid to straight up homework cheating. Students share answers all the time, sometimes innocently, because humans want to help each other. Students are much, much smarter than faculty when it comes to stopping cheating. Good luck stopping it in a lecture hall of 100 people!

Every accredited online course program requires proctoring. To think in person stops cheating is naive. We need to rethink how education works if people feel the need to cheat so much. I’ll give you a hint: when people pay 5,000 dollars a class they’re going to cheat because they’re financially incentivized to do so. Administrative bloat in university needs to be done away with immediately and costs of education fixed by the government to some number that is reasonable for most people. Education should not be for-profit. Right now it is, even at public universities.

[redczar]

I have 30 years of experience teaching mathematics in higher education. Around 50% of higher education occurs in community colleges. Another large percentage occurs in regional state universities and small liberal arts colleges. Many of these don’t have graduate students and don’t have large lecture hall courses. Your experience is not normative.

Every accredited online course program requires proctoring.

You are wrong.

Your logic is quite bad too. The response to the statement that there is massive amounts of cheating in online courses shouldn’t be: “there is cheating in face-to-face courses too”. Obviously what matters are the relative rates of cheating and you’ve not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why the rates are comparable.

To think in person stops cheating is naive.

Obviously. And I never stated or implied that there is no cheating in face-to-face courses.

[RHSeeger]

But it's still better than no course option available to people that can't attend in person. So the question becomes how do we improve it.

[ethagknight]

The whole discussion revolves around credentialing and certification that you actually learned the stuff you claim to have learned, that you jumped through the hoops required by a given college system whose reputation you want to lever into a career.

If you just wanna learn stuff online, dive in and watch YouTube or any of the variety of online educstional services, but in reality you want a certification that says you did the work, and maybe the actual transfer of knowledge is secondary. We shouldn’t pretend that credentials should be handed out for watching YouTube videos and filling out tests with Google searches, group chats sharing answers, or now, AI.

The goal of any credentialing system shouldn’t be to lower the bar as low as possible; you just devalue the whole system. There are several major institutions, formerly reputable, that many will not hire job prospects from.

In other words… Community college should be a bit of a grind, one that produces students who are far more knowledgeable than when they started the program.

[RHSeeger]

The goal of the system as a whole should be to help people live better lives. That includes providing the knowledge for people to do the jobs that help society function. And whatever is needed to help them convince employers to hire them (ie, credentials). And (hopefully) other knowledge that helps them in a more general way (ie, the various generic classes that teach non-domain knowledge).

The fact that public colleges are a credentialing system is (supposed) to be in pursuit of the above; not the end goal. If we can find ways to help them achieve the above that doesn't actually need credentialing, that should be fine, too. I don't know if that's possible (or even a goal); but it's important to be able to distinguish between the actual goal and what we're trying to do (atm) to achieve them.

[mnky9800n]

Yes but they have to be willing to do things that sacrifice other things in order to get ahead. And those sacrifices should be minimized in places outside of their control. Like a child of poor parents should not be penalized and be unable to afford school or take massive debt to do it. It is unacceptable to live this way. It is not fair. People should be given the option to pursue skills and knowledges without a financial burden. And because that is true, people need access to the best possible educational environment and I guarantee you that is not watching video lectures and it’s not plugging in answers into some dumb course management software. That is not a good use of anyone’s time. This is why students should be expected to show up and be present in class because so much of learning is done together. Online environments create a barrier between each other in this case.

I am sure there will be someone who will say, but I liked studying alone. Yes, I agree with you. Pursuit of knowledge by yourself is an important skill to have and a time that is meant to be enjoyed. And what I say to you is this, creating knowledge with others is also a time to be enjoyed and if you miss out on that you are missing out on some of the understanding your books cannot provide. And I would welcome you to work on teams which give you the opportunity to work in this fashion and see if you enjoy it. Because I found that I really do and I want to share that with others.

[red-iron-pine]

* entirely self driven, which is hard for a lot of necessary but often dry courses

* taught mostly via online videos; impossible to ask questions on the spot or explore concepts

* interaction with peers and professors is almost entirely forced or inorganic and often terrible

* limited networking options; no real community; hard to build bridges and get references when your professor is an automated test system (i.e. Canvas, et al)

* often limited screening; U Phoenix or WGU takes anyone, and now I have 100+ semi-literate applicants who somehow pulled a 3.3 via online schools blowing up my applications

* difficult to assess value proposition; you generally need to register to take part, while I can just drive to VA Tech or Dartmouth or even the Naval Academy and walk around and see (mostly) what it's like

[datavirtue]

I had a much better experience than this at my local community college. Full engagement from all professors.