Hacker News Reader

Comment by impendia | Hacker News Reader

I wrote a long-winded, somewhat ill-tempered response, and then quickly deleted it. But in brief --

I have thought semi-deeply about teaching online. I do believe it can be done well, but only with a lot of effort, and (at least in my department) I don't think it would save the university money, if done well.

Personally, I'm not terribly eager to invest this effort. I've had a poor experience with our university's training, and also I just like interacting with people in person better. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but there are a lot of other things I can do to benefit my university and my students, which I'd enjoy more, and I'd rather invest my efforts there.

That said, I do think that universities who are willing to hire faculty for remote work could develop fantastic online programs. There are tons of dual-career academic couples that don't get jobs in the same city, and try and make some crazy commuter marriage work. Hire them.

View on HN

> I don't think it would save the university money, if done well.

IMO universities these days are mainly in the real estate business. The maintenance on a building with multiple 1k person lecture halls isn't cheap. Faculty are underpaid. And yet it's more and more expensive.

Most universities don't pay property tax (maybe not most, but many are public and don't). They all have owned most of their land for over one hundred years. Buildings are expensive, but those are "one time capital expenses) and just plain don't add up.

What I'm saying is there is no obvious reason why a university costs more to run today than 1990,but tuition has gone up far more than inflation.

Guaranteed loans and other subsidies.

Those are enablers for sure, but not causes

What's the difference?

If students can't get the money prices cannot go up without a drop in enrollment thus students need a way to get money. That is why more money enables prices to go up, the alternative of going without becomes forced if students (other than the rich) cannot raise the money.

However the ability change more doesn't force it. Administration could presumably keep prices down instead of - here I have no idea what they are spending it on.

This lack of knowledge means that I cannot comment more. My opinion on using the money to pay more teachers thus reducing class size is very different from my opinion on private jets to some exotic vacation. (I don't think either of the above are the case but I could be wrong)

Yes, many folks comment on administrative growth and lavish student services to compete.

Those are commonly blamed, but I don't have enough information to know if they are right or any reason to believe they are experts who know what they are talking about. It isn't something that I reject, but I am careful not to believe it as well.

Aka, grain of salt. Well, at least there are only a few places they could be socking away the money.

> I don't think it would save the university money, if done well.

Why is that the targeted benefit? I would think the main thing to gain from online courses is the ability to disseminate knowledge and learning to a broader swath of students.

> I don't think it would save the university money, if done well

If universities have to be closed for the next 6 months, And is this could happen again next year, online learning will be their only source of revenue

Oh, that's true! And I fear that it won't be done all that well. Parents have long asked "Is this really worth $XX,XXX?" Those questions could get a lot louder.

It seems that some people are hoping that the COVID-19 outbreak will get a lot of universities, and individual professors, excited about the long-term potential of teaching online. I don't expect this to happen -- although I could of course be proven wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com