Although the term "university" can be appropriated by anyone, what we know as universities that provide valid degrees that are recognized by employers and other universities are accredited by regional and national accrediting bodies. Most online universities are NOT Glenn Beck University or iTunes University--they are accredited by the very same agencies that accredit traditional public and private universities. There are many online universities that provide degrees that are well-regarded by employers. (In a survey a few years ago, more than half of hiring managers said they would not discount someone simply because they had an online degree.) Also, many traditional colleges and universities are offering online courses and full degree programs to supplement their campus-based programs and to provide additional revenue sources. Increasingly, they will need to explore these avenues as federal and state funds get eaten up, particularly at public institutions.

Let's have a serious discussion on the value of online education. Comparing Glenn Beck University to a Walden or a Capella simply because they're online is unfair. Online education IS changing the landscape of education these days. Most of the time, the complaints I hear are elitist in nature--e.g., "they're going to degrade the value of MY degree." In reality, online education is changing the landscape by providing greater access, and greater access has always been what higher education is about in this country, from the original land grant institutions to the G.I. Bills.

Let me clarify: the two great revolutions in access to U.S. higher education--the Morill Acts establishing the land grant universities in the late 19th century and the GI Bill following WWII--are directly traceable to the expansion of the U.S. economy, agricultural and technological innovations, and in the latter case to the tremendous growth of the middle class in the second half of the 20th century. Whenever there has been an expansion of access, those who benefit from increased access are invariably lifted up economically, which should be something that one would hope for in a country where the majority of wealth is concentrated in a fraction of 1% while more people in the middle and lower classes can't afford the costs of daily living.

So yes: access is a critical factor in education in the U.S., and arguments against access usually take the form of elitists complaining that someone is going to dumb down and devalue the education and quality of life that they need to protect (which apparently hasn't helped some to learn how to spell "artifact" properly). The GI Bill was decried by then University of Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins, who called it a threat to american education that would create "hobo jungles," just like the elitists are calling online education a threat today.

By referencing "your country," I don't know what country you're writing from, but I don't know any democratic country that wouldn't connect increased access to education to improved quality of life for its citizens and improved economic opportunities for everyone. Without that, postulating the "critical examinations of human, social, material, or spiritual phenomena"--which certainly sound like activities for people who don't actually work--won't matter much if everyone is in the poor house while doing so.

[article author here]

@Lee: You make some very valid & rational points about the importance of online universities and the difference between them and unaccredited online "universities". I do agree that the increase in online universities and available programs online should be thought of as a good thing. As a supplement to traditional programs online courses are incredibly convenient when you need to take a few last courses while interning, working full-time, or maybe even if you're traveling. But I've taken courses physically at UNC-Chapel Hill's campus and comparably the UNC online courses were a joke. Sure you had to "read the material" and take "tests", but most of them were open-book quizzes & tests. I learned very little in my online courses. Who is regulating the way that online programs are conducted after the syllabus is written?

I seriously question the purpose of online institutions. If it is just to get as many people graduated with bachelor's degrees as possible, then it's working its way up to that goal quite well. But sooner or later there's going to be so many people with bachelor's degrees that it DOES degrade the value of a bachelor's degree. It also makes those individuals WITHOUT a bachelor's degree less desirable in the workplace to the point where you almost cannot get a job anymore without a degree. I don't think that's a path we want to go down. Not everyone in this country needs a bachelor's degree to do their job (administrative assistants, business owners, computer technicians, etc), but there are so many people out there with them now that a degree has become a pre-requisite for any job. I don't think that's good.

I don't think everyone should be able to just get a degree by regurgitating facts from a book (and for many online bachelor's programs that's all that's required). Yes, everyone should be given ACCESS to a good education, but only those worthy (who have actually learned something of value) should be able to receive the degree.

As an additional side-note, just as unaccredited universities shouldn't be compared to accredited ones, I don't think traditional universities should be compared to online universities. There is a distinct different in the purpose of online institutions versus traditional ones. I've reviewed hundreds of online programs and I've seem a common thread: preparing students in as little time as possible for a professional field/practice. Only about half of the programs require any sort of independent research and even professional degrees (like an MSN, MBA, etc.) rarely require their students to actually apply their studies to real life, such as starting their own business in an MBA program.

All food for thought.

All good points as well.

@Carlee: my wife has started a campus-based master's program at a long-standing, reputable university in the Chicago area, and she describes the classes as a joke and the assignments as much easier than her bachelor's degree. So it's just as possible that campus-based education can provide an inferior experience. As an example, let's look at class size and participation. One can argue that campus-based education is more interactive and social, but if you're at a large university taking a 100-level course with 400 other students facing a professor who doesn't know your name, how can that be a personal experience? Most online classes are small, and though the challenge of participation and interaction remains, the better course designers overcome many of these challenges through group projects and increased communication.

If you want to see a great example of how education and students are changing, here's an amazing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

@Brian: I also can't disagree about socialization, but don't you think that this aspect of education is increasingly the concern of the shrinking portion of our society who can continue to afford to send their kids to school for four years? (I know what I did in college, and the thought of sending three kids to college at 5x the price that I spent just so they can "party" makes me wonder whether community college will be just fine!) Besides, online education is usually aimed at the "non-traditional" student--someone who is already a little older, in the workforce, and not as concerned about the socializing aspects of education. There's also evidence that older people learn differently than younger people do--the difference between pedagogy and androgogy.

Online education is for a different type of student. You have to learn how to pace yourself and manage your own time. You have to be able to master the technology and use it to communicate effectively. These attributes also apply to today's knowledge worker--the type of person that I'd like to hire.

I've taken classes both at a competitive brick-and-mortar university (Michigan) and in an online, distance-learning program (through BYU, so a pretty legitimate university), and ultimately think that either format offers great opportunities to learn for a motivated students, as well as opportunities for students to coast, too.

Brian above mentioned the socialization aspect of in-person learning, and I'd have to say that that offers one major difference between the two. In person at a great school, you pick up more than just your individual pursuit of knowledge (reading, listening to lectures, etc.) as you're surrounded by the ideas, questions, and interaction of many other elite thinkers. In its greatest form, those situations challenge you to not only "know" but to "think" - you're responsible for defending your positions, answering and asking questions, etc.

Accordingly, my take is that online courses are terrific for acquiring knowledge, but that in-person education adds (or at least better facilitates the addition of) the dimension of your learning to think.

The issue of hirability and career prospects is important, too: Well-respected brick-and-mortar universities offer multiple huge advantages here in terms of alumni network, traditional recruiter interaction, etc. But even more so, a job applicant's very association with such a school acts as a credible commitment to the workforce; the applicant comes pre-approved by an institution whose approval is valued by that world, and the applicant's commitment to being admitted to the school, paying for that education, and completing the tasks necessary to graduate are all signals to an employer that the applicant is not only pre-approved, but motivated to succeed and capable of success, as well. In a perfect world all job candidates would be evaluated thoroughly, but business aims for perfection in efficiency much more than it does in meritocracy. If I need to hire for a new position and can only really afford the time to review x number of resumes and interview y candidates from that pool, there's a much higher percentage chance that I'll find a rockstar from an Ivy League school than from DeVry or Glenn Beck U., so in the interest of my own time I need to play the odds.