Stop offering online classes and expect students to show up in person. Online education sucks, everyone knows this. Everyone knows that they are making some kind of compromise when teaching or taking an online course. And if people are too poor to drive themselves to college or have to work too much or whatever else, then the state should provide opportunities for them so that they can continue their education. Stop accepting less than this.
I grew up in a very conservative and controlling environment. My ability to study remotely is one of the things that helped lift me out of that environment. I am far from alone in this experience.
I’d have much preferred an in-person education. But I don’t think we should look at the situation as “A is better than B so let’s get rid of B”. B still serves an important purpose and eliminating it will leave people behind.
> then the state should provide opportunities for them so that they can continue their education
I get what you mean, but saying that something _should_ be the case in response to not liking it doesn’t really make sense since that’s the reason it’s popular in the first place. States don’t do this, so that’s part of why online schooling is valuable.
I agree that online school isn’t as quality as in person (in my experience), but it gives a ton of flexibility to those who can’t commute (due to time or cost) and allows those people to possibly get an education when they otherwise couldn’t.
I wonder if there’s a formal term for this kind of argument (would love to know because I see it a lot).
The formal term is irony, because what they are presenting is actually a "Reductio ad absurdum", but they don't understand why their argument is absurd.
If you want a case and point of this, imagine a comedian proposing this idea dripping with sarcasm and clever little jokes, sort of what John Oliver does. The overall absurdity would be obvious, and everyone would understand the suggestion is a bad idea, with a little bit of honey to go with the vinegar.
The people often presenting this sort of unintentionally ironic argument don't seem to recognize the idiocy or exclusivity of the thing they're suggesting. Lacking understanding of the absurdity of the situation is the definition of their ignorance, because the burden of understanding and proof are on the person presenting the argument, not the audience. (Everyone is ignorant in some way, and nobody is even close to knowing everything. You're being dramatic if you really think that way, even for a second.)
I currently have a full time job in government as a computer scientist. I'm also taking an online master's at georgia tech and it's fairly good so far - no other way I could study supercomputing. Why would I leave an AI job where I'm learning practical AI skills to study CS? Async with evening exams was my only option.
If you don't have a broad perspective on all life circumstances and types of education, don't just dismiss what you don't know.
I had to go to community college while having a job and paying for everything and doing it around my schedule. This was before most places had online options and those that did were like, university of phoenix where it seemed like it would limit you because it wasn't considered the same as a non-profit university. I don't really buy this argument that people need some kind of online experience or otherwise they would be cut out (excluding people with some kind of disability that prevents them from going places). Plenty of people were able to complete college educations by showing up to night classes prior to online classes being a thing.
After that, I worked at GaTech where one of my responsibilities was helping to build the physics portion of the masters program that you are currently in (i don't think the physics portion ever turned into a master program like OSMCS, i left around the time OSMCS started offering degrees). When building these courses we tried to implement the best information from cognitive science and education, we tried to build the best exercises, we had super active involvement in course forums, etc. We did everything right, and we still felt that something was missing from the experience from the teaching side and we did not find that students in the online side participated in the same ways, or learned the same information, as those on-campus. I still believe that most people would benefit more from in person educational experiences. I think your experience in the gatech program is a valuable one and I have heard many positive things about this program since I left to go and do other stuff. However, I still believe that there is something valuable from most educational programs being offered in person only.
1) full-time in-person education, quitting my CS job
2) full-time online education, quitting my CS job
3) full-time CS job and doing a part-time master's online
Option #3 is the best for my CS education and growth. Period. Don't pretend the only choices are #1 and #2 because you're arguing in favour of #1.
Plus, it's not like I can (or want to) move to the USA just for studies. I have family in Montreal. Montreal has great universities for CS and AI but they have almost nothing for supercomputing or quantum computing.
I was a teacher for 4 years. I get it. There's magic to in-person education. But millions of people think online is the better choice for them and they're not all wrong.
However I believe they do require you to show up for _exams_. Online proctoring is a miserable disaster, especially in the AI era, so I think for credentials it's unfortunately necessary to have in-person exams. (edit: checked and they switched to online during COVID, unsuprisingly, but are considering switching back)
The ease of financial fraud is a separate issue. In the US I suspect that's linked to widespread identity fraud.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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
Like anything it depends on the situation. It works well for some people and subjects but not for others.
Last semester I had a student in my online class that was every tech illiterate. There was an assignment where they were supposed to download a file, fill in the blanks and submit it. This is something that should take no more than 5 minutes. The student couldn't figure out how. I told the student, "you can just print it out then take a picture." Come to find out the student doesn't have a laptop or desktop computer and was trying to do it on a phone. I look at their schedule and they are taking all online courses. That person should not be taking online classes.
This kind of fraud existed even before online college became so popular.
Around 2014-2015 we had to start reporting the “last day of attendance” or participation for any student who failed a course. Kind of a pain when you prefer to treat your university students as adults and not take attendance.
Remote and correspondence (the same thing really) have existed forever. There is zero basis for your statement it’s worse, and there is zero basis for your statement that there is compromise. Remote schooling allows people who wouldn’t have the means to educate themselves formally such as working people, parents, adult learners, etc to do so in a manner practical to them.
I have a degree I got in person and now one I am working on remote. Do you know what the difference is? NOTHING! When I went in person I was making up for the shortcomings of professors too. I was still having to teach myself a lot. The only true difference was I wasn’t able to do more than terrible part time work and I drove 45 minutes one way.
Malware vendors like honorlock have made remote schooling much more difficult. Not in terms of learning but in terms of overall stress level. Remote schooling itself is an incredible way to break from the aristocratic ideal still pedaled by universities today.
I’m envious of students whose parents prepared appropriately for their kids to go to school and focus full time. I was not one of them. My situation made worse by my parents making just enough to disqualify me from any aid despite their contribution of 0. The existence of remote schooling has allowed me to pursue my educational dreams.
Yeah, they once told my wife this "expect students to show up in person", when she was pregnant and not all the time well. The result? Thrown out of the self paid language course at university with no refund.
But in the US, colleges have offices for accommodations. The faculty isn't required to do anything unless the university, acting through that office, tells them to.
Source: my career spent working with this kind of institution and this kind of office.
