[Dr. Sivana]

None of the BIG ones will follow such a model.

By BIG ones, I don't mean big names like Yale and Stanford. I mean some college that already exists or will spring forth that decides to become the Wal-Mart of college degrees. J.C. Penney can't do it alone; but a J.C. Penney, Sears & Roebuck and Montgomery Ward can. I am also not suggesting that the expensive model will disappear, only that it could be practical to provide an education and a degree for very little money if you want. The only gatekeepers really in the way at this point are the accreditation agencies.

I have no problem with having multiple levels of education. I have attended institutions of higher learning at every level, and of most types (except an actual community college). There are good and bad teachers in all of them. The worst of the worst are at the elite private and major public universities. They are not merely lazy or unskilled, they have an agenda.

In a free country, you HAVE multiple levels of health care, as you should. Canada outlaws nearly all private health care in the name of equality. The Brits have two tiers. The U.S. has multiple tiers (Los Angeles free clinic on up to the Mayo Clinic and elite private practices). Same is true of food. Same is true of housing.

An earnest student without a lot of money CAN get a college degree without spending a whole lot of money. I was taking distance education (for credit that counted towards my degree, from the U of Wisconsin) back in the '80s. In those days it was by mail. Add AP, CLEP, maybe specialty schools with degree granting authority like Thomas Edison and Charter Oak College, and yes. You can get a legit college degree for not a whole lot. No one said it had to be Harvard.

THAT SAID, if there is an online operation with 500,000 English speaking students world-wide, they might be able to draw a staff of big name profs just for the exposure and/or money.

If your gig is student to teacher ratio, you are out of luck.

[kabar]

By BIG ones, I don't mean big names like Yale and Stanford. I mean some college that already exists or will spring forth that decides to become the Wal-Mart of college degrees...

Can you name at least one of the existing schools that will spring forth?

I have no problem with having multiple levels of education.

Nor do I. We already have multiple levels of education. Distance learning and online courses are also part of the mix, many of them coming from both public and private universities. My daughter took an online course from Harvard. We have multiple levels and multiple differences in the quality of education.

In a free country, you HAVE multiple levels of health care, as you should. Canada outlaws nearly all private health care in the name of equality. The Brits have two tiers. The U.S. has multiple tiers (Los Angeles free clinic on up to the Mayo Clinic and elite private practices). Same is true of food. Same is true of housing.

One size doesn't fit all. Canada can have its health system because people have the alternative to go to the US. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border.

The centeral planners and socialists like Obama think they can impose their own models on an entire country, but they don't think it applies to them. I lived in a communist country for two years. The political elites had their own stores (hard currency), housing, etc. The masses are the ones who must endure what the system has to offer.

I see this article as being somewhat condescending and definitely unrealistic. Distance learning and online courses will not replace our university system. The best way to get a handle on costs is to cut down on government subsidies. The government has made it too easy for students to borrow money. Tuition costs are going up faster than inflation. We need to reintroduce reality into the system. The government is the main culprit in driving up tuition costs because of easy loans. The universities are not being forced to respond to the pressures of the marketplace.

I see a diabolic objective in all of this. Obama has taken over the student loan program, which gives the government the ability to use student loans as a lever to influence votes. No doubt Obama could decide to excuse a large portion of student loans with the stroke of a pen. The US taxpayer would be the loser, but it is no different than the food stamp program or any other means-tested welfare program. This is just another manifestation of the welfare state.