Promises of Online Higher Ed-Reducing Costs
The notion that MOOCs and other online courses will reduce the costs of providing higher education and the price students pay for it is a key part of the presumed “promise” of online learning. The question of whether these courses can actually deliver on these grand claims has rarely been explored–and for good reason. Legislators offering up MOOCs instead of funding, administrators building the “efficiencies” and “innovation” sections of their résumés with MOOCs, and corporate providers of MOOC-related goods and services are not likely to look hard at the costs of actually developing and offering such courses.
This paper looks at the trend of charging students more for online courses and at developments in MOOCs that also point to increased costs for students desiring actual degree credit. In sum, the push for more online courses has not made higher education cheaper for students. The promise has always been that it will –but that day always seems to be in the future.
A tally of the often-hidden costs of producing high-quality MOOCs and other online courses suggests that these courses are not actually cheaper for colleges and universities either. In fact, if done well, they can even cost more to produce than traditional face-to-face classes.
Promises of Online Higher Ed-Profits
With so much national focus on the “promises” of online higher education to expand access and to reduce costs, one truth about online higher education rarely mentioned is that it is big—Very Big—business. Understanding and assessing developments in online higher education require that we look at them not just through the lens of industry slogans—“innovation,” “expanded access,” and “reduced costs,” but also through the lens of corporate interest and influence.
This paper examines ways in which investors and corporate leaders have “followed the money” to be made in online higher education–expanding rapidly in areas where profits were robust, moving into virgin territory when new laws or other changes created new possibilities, tweaking their ventures when faced with bad press or regulatory crackdown, and always shaping their sales pitch to make each move appear a boon for students and for our country.
It also discusses the “insider talk” of investors and corporate leaders about online higher education. For parents, students, and the general public who focus primarily on what education means for people’s futures, for social mobility, for a healthy economy and a robust democracy, a dip into the insider talk of online investors and industry analysts is both instructive and disorienting: what will make money for companies in the online higher ed business, insiders acknowledge repeatedly, has nothing to do with the glittery sales pitch.
This piece is the Campaign for the Future of Higher Education’s first step in looking at who is making money, how much, in what ways, and with whose assistance in online higher education. Only when the public “follows the money” can we assess the full “value” of the seemingly endless stream of technologically-related innovations in higher education and make the best policy decisions for the future of higher education in our country.
RELEASE OF WORKING PAPERS IN ADVANCE OF CAMPUS EQUITY WEEK EVENTS
For Immediate Release: October 3, 2013
Contact: Alice Sunshine, firstname.lastname@example.org
Higher Ed Faculty to Discuss Report on Conference Call with the Media on October 9; Report is First in a Series of Three to be Released This Month
Funding Higher Education: The Search for Possibilities
Working papers on ways we can ensure the people of the U.S. have access to good quality higher education.
Over the last 15 years or so, quality public higher education has become much less accessible and affordable for most Americans. The way it used to work was simple—taxpayers funded public colleges and universities sufficiently so that students who were prepared to work a few hours a week could complete their degrees in a relatively short time with a minimum amount of debt. For those with even greater need, government provided state grants and Pell grants.
Making All Public Higher Education Free
By Bob Samuels
President, University of California-American Federation of Teachers
Lecturer, University of California at Los Angeles
Financial Options for Restoring Quality and Access to Public Higher Education in California: 2012/13
By Stanton A. Glantz and Eric Hays
How to Invest in Higher Education: A Financial Speculation Tax
by Rudy Fichtenbaum
President, American Association of Universtiy Professors
Professor of Economics, Wright State University