1 - Online channel
Agreed - there is certainly room to expand access to university course offerings that can be delivered effectively in an online format to capable high school students (or middle school students).
The same argument can extend to students enrolled in any post-secondary program who are qualified to complete advanced coursework at multiple institutions.
(And, really, the evidence suggests that open access to lifelong learning is the optimal societal equilibrium for skills. It's cheapest on the public purse, maximizes private sector access to qualified talent, and yields the best social outcomes.)
2 - The market for post-secondary education is misaligned
It is my firmly held opinion that the market for post-secondary education is fundamentally mis-aligned. Instead of being brokered at the institution level, it should clear at the program or course-level (depending on market factors). Realistically, most first and second-year level coursework is totally commodifiable and could be delivered through a learning pass-port*/portfolio; and some programs entirely, which would support increased online content. Those rare, truly unique or advanced courses could entertain more selective admissions processes.
As it stands, we waste unfathomable resources on filler. The post-secondary market is flooded with useless courses, and useless instructors. A more efficient, affordable, accessible, scalable model could cut the fat and double down on the best basic content, to expand coverage of exceptional classes for all who can handle them.
*Hyphenated to clear SPAM filter.
Of course, this is my Polyanna-ish, "university is for learning and the greater good" view, which I sincerely hold. Reality ensues.
3 - What professors / provosts want
However, this would require the university funding model to flip on its head. I have worked closely with most major university provosts and vice-provosts here in Canada on education systems design, and I can say with certitude that even here - a much more inclusive, collectivist society - there is little appetite among senior university administrators to move in the direction of *actual* inclusion. They don't want to see themselves as intellectual Pez dispensers or *gasp* providing market-led skills development. Such is the comfort of the ivory tower existence, that it will suppress progress to feather its own nest. Cynical, maybe, but that's the paradigm.
4- What's a fund manager to do?
Let's be frank - the US majors are all primarily endowment funds, not universities, by function and financing. The incentives they reward in market are, in this order:
a) Commercialization
b) Cultural insularity
c) Reputational reinforcement
Now, actual knowledge creation and societal value are correlated with those, to some degree. But the illusion that university is for learning and giving back is all but dead in the elite US university market. Students (and many faculty) are branded, like bipedal Wagyu, not necessarily educated or capable of meaningful work.
How does online course delivery - and opening the matriculant kimono - play into this strategy? Not at all.
