How do you explain the cost of education in the modern world where the logistics of information are as cheap as never before? Any kid on the world could access material from the best teachers on the planet. So why keep this legacy system for education that is more and more based solely on prestige?
Sure, there is a chance for everybody. But why make it a chance that will certainly remain unfulfilled for a significant majority?
That's fairly irrelevant to my comment. The cost of achieving a 4 year education doesn't have to be high, either.
Let's assume we're talking about Georgia, a place with a low cost of living and access to a high quality engineering school.
Year 1: Work in the state, securing in-state tuition costs
Year 2+3: Go to Georgia Perimeter College (2 year tuition cost: $4600)
Year 4+5: Attend Georgia Institute of Technology on the transfer program (2 year tuition + fee cost: $12,400)
Total cost of tuition is now $17,000 over 4 years.
To get at your point about information logistics: nothing has ever been more useful in my life than being surrounded by intelligent people going through the same grueling process that you are, supporting each other and working together for the single point of trying to learn material and complete assignments under unreasonable deadlines.
There's also difference between access to the best instruction on the planet and having direct communication to some of the best instructors doing some of the most interesting work on the planet.
> trying to learn material and complete assignments under unreasonable deadlines.
Oh, come on, people tend to survive university.
I am thinking of models for educational institutions here, not golf clubs.
Of course the environment is important but that is not an argument for artificial exclusivity and if only in context of the material given.
Pay for the direct line if you wish to do so since information is more widely available today, the difference between formal and "guerilla" education will get smaller.
And there should be a vast economic interest to decrease this distance. With the exception of business interests of universities of course.
I work for a big 4 tech company and I've never had tasks as unreasonably paced as the ones I had in school. Admittedly I went to the school reported to have the worst work life balance in the country while I was there.
The environment isn't important, it's the deciding factor in the quality of your education. A good environment with the right curriculum is the single most effective way to learn a difficult subject, develop the habits that help you learn, and have the conversations that lead to retention.
There is a vast economic interest to decrease the distance here. You have a ton of eLearning resources at your disposal. They just don't work as well for most people.
Like it or not, the main cost of university is not from education or from helping graduates find jobs. It's true that anyone with an internet connection can access course material from top universities and from top professors. But only a university can get you a community, a network, a signal: you may call that prestige; society doesn't care.
I would also like to mention that the UC system is one of the more open, impactful universities when compared to the privates.
> How do you explain the cost of education in the modern world where the logistics of information are as cheap as never before? Any kid on the world could access material from the best teachers on the planet. So why keep this legacy system for education that is more and more based solely on prestige?
That's probably because reading/watching materials isn't everything what education is or what brings its value. Just the fact that the system manages to get 8-18 year olds to read those materials and learn them makes a start difference, not to mention allows access to mentors and peers doing the same thing.
You could have automated gamification of education without the overpriced manuals and professors. There's just a strong monetary pressure to not have that.
Sure, there is a chance for everybody. But why make it a chance that will certainly remain unfulfilled for a significant majority?