[jval]

This is completely right. Most of the commenters here keep thinking about it from the perspective of people in countries that already have great access to education, but disruption begins with people who don't already have access to a product or are struggling to afford the existing alternatives.

In the case of education, these people are most likely to reside in the developing world - there are billions of people in places like the BRIC nations for whom $6,600 is a really reasonable price to access education over the internet without having to leave their current homes, families and commitments. Not only that, they get to put Georgia Tech on their resume and apply for jobs domestically and overseas (especially in the US) where people will recognise their qualifications, even if they have an online masters and not a masters.

The scale of something like this is difficult to fathom - we are talking many times the population of the US and Europe combined who could benefit from something like this. This is why we are witnessing something truly revolutionary.

[mtgx]

I agree with your general theory, but I don't think $6,600 is "reasonable" for a college degree in BRIC nations. I think even in the more developed countries in Europe that's at the high-end of what it costs to get one. It only seems reasonable for an American, who usually pays what - $100,000-$200,000?

$2,000 is what I'd call "reasonable", although if we're really thinking about truly revolutionizing education for the other 3+ billion people, it needs to go even cheaper than that. Everyone should get access to the same level of quality education, and their financial situation should not be a major impediment.

[guiambros]

As someone from one of the BRIC countries (now living in the US for the past decade), I can tell you that $6,600 would be a ridiculously affordable option for tens of thousands of students in these markets.

Brazil, in particular, has the exact opposite model of the US. Public undergrad schools are generally weak (with very few exceptions). If your parents can't afford to send you to a private high school, you'll probably have a tough time ranking well on the top public universities (which are not only free, but normally ranked lot better).

Not surprisingly, some public universities receive 10-20x more candidates/spot than other private options.

MOOC and initiatives like this pilot from Georgia Tech have the potential to change this picture radically in the next 10-15 years.

Instead of spending $100,000+ for a second class degree, some students will opt to spend a fraction of this, for a top tier US school. And you could use the difference to complement your education in other different ways - in-person courses, unpaid internships abroad, trips, etc.

Probably still not the same as going in-person to a top university school, but still revolutionary. The goal shouldn't be to send everybody to the best universities in the world (which is an impossible and unrealistic goal), but to give the best education that each person can have.

[insertdisktwo]

Keep in mind that it is $6,600 for a graduate (post-Bachelors) degree, not a college degree.

In the U.S. a Bachelors degree lasts 8-9 semesters and equips you for work far better than the 3-year Bologna "equivalent."

The Masters degree thus can focus almost exclusively on the graduate-level courses, with the exception of some refreshers.

You have to compare the $6,600 to the cost of living in the United States.

U.S. census Bureau's poverty threshold is $11,500/year income. In this income-level very little goes to taxes. So this program is roughly 7 months of minimum wage in the US.

That is very affordable for an advanced degree.

[anonymouz]

Speaking as someone living in a country with no to low tuition, when I read the the title of the submission my reaction was "$6,600, wow that's expensive", while probably the opposite was intended.

[aptwebapps]

Totally random Googling led me to this: http://www.masterstudies.com/M.-Tech.-(Robotics-Engineering)...

which costs about 4655 USD