If college is a filtering device to identify the intelligent and self-motivated, online courses that are only passed by such people are a good thing, and the fact that residential colleges provide more support and enable less motivated or intelligent people to pass is a bad thing. If college is about learning, the best mode is the one that enables the most people to pass.
There is much more discussion in the media and online forums on how to get into Harvard et al. than on whether students learn more at Harvard, suggesting that the filtering role of college is primary. If so, we should move much college instruction online, fire many professors, fire almost all administrators, and save a lot of money.
Sorry, but such a conclusion is warranted only if College = Harvard. Is Harvard representative of "college" in the generic sense? Definitely not; not all higher ed is interchangeable. Such information is only suggestive of the idea that an HARVARD's major purpose is filtering. That tends to occur at the admissions proceedings in most selective Ivies. That's a different model than one finds at public colleges, by the way, where virtually anyone can GET in, but staying there may be another story. Faculty control who "stays" in the latter model, via course rigor and the avoidance of grade inflation. (It's a mixed bag, I'm aware... administrator want to keep EVERYONE, and your alumni want you to throw the stragglers under the bus.)
This isn't much of a secret in higher ed, by the way.
The biggest luminaries in the field are often abysmal
teachers within the same field. Places which don't identify with "home of {insert luminary name here}" tend to focus on scholarship or teaching in less celebrity/brand-driven ways. The single worst seminar I
ever attended was given by a much-lauded Nobel winner-- while it's anecdote, it also disproves the notion that being excited, intellectually superb, and knowledgeable is enough to transform someone into a riveting instructor.
Also-- acquiring knowledge isn't exactly synonymous with learning or gaining
understanding, which explains the misgivings that most faculty have with the online model.
This goes along with Val's insights about non-content specialists helping with course development. Theoretically, that seems great... but in practice, it has ALWAYS been more or less disastrous in post-secondary to involve "educator" types in the development of course content.
There really are plenty of PhD's out there who
are excellent educators. I worked with a department that was about 75% excellent educators, and before that at a research institution which was something like 40-50% good educators at the undergrad level.
By the time I earned my PhD, I'd effectively already completed a teaching post-doc. Right from the beginning, the "machine" of Gen Chem there hand-picked the most capable TA's, and ditched the ones that were awful. I'd taught gen chem, I'd revamped a lab manual for that course (yes, my name is still on it), and I'd also taught a summer session majors course in analytical chemistry. So I
was well-prepared. I was a good teacher-- and the good ones get "rewarded" in grad programs with
teaching experience that goes on their vitae. This is how they get faculty positions.
Or it used to be, before tenure started to go away in favor of hiring adjuncts as low-cost contract temp labor. Meh.
Sorry, but my personal opinion is that the corporatization of higher ed is what is driving the conversion to online. It has
never been about "need." At least not STUDENT needs. Administrators see dollar signs, and they are eager to leap-- just as they have been in converting entire departments to adjunct staffing in teaching loads. One problem... who is supposed to be counseling and advising students? Who writes them letters of recommendation later for professional and graduate programs? Who do those students go to for help or extension activities?
