The University of California is considering spending $5 to $6 million on a pilot project that will provide online undergraduate degrees.
The proponents of the project call it an expansion of access that simultaneously grows revenue, a plan that aligns perfectly with both the goals and the realities of public education.
But the reality is far more complicated than that. Although information may be imparted effectively through the Internet, awarding UCLA degrees on the basis of curriculum that is entirely online is something at which we balk.
Elite institutions are able to provide a high caliber education because they equip students with skills and a critical mindset so that they can become contributing, worldly citizens and productive people. Our elite universities are excellent at doing this ““ but they do so with the resources of a fully appointed campus, and most importantly, they do so in person.
Aside from our unfounded optimism, we have absolutely no tangible reason to believe that this same instructional expertise would be paralleled with an online degree program. There are fundamental differences between in-person and online interactions. This board is not sure that it is wise to spend several million dollars on the basis of that optimism.
This board also believes that the value of an undergraduate degree cannot be wholly captured by an online degree program. For some of us, the most valuable lessons we’ve had have been outside of the classroom ““ how to manage people by running a student group or attending extracurricular talks and lectures ““ irreplaceable experiences that are available to us because we are firmly planted within a community of learning.
We have no reason to believe that this experience can be neatly packaged into an online program without a deterioration in quality.
Furthermore, since online degrees will not be, and are not comparable to, traditional degrees, a problem of distinction arises. Both degrees will be branded with the UCLA name and all of the accolades and implications thereof, but they will be fundamentally different. Not only will the prestige of our degrees be unavoidably diluted by this association, but funding the online program bears the opportunity cost of funds lost to the traditional program.
If it is truly our goal to expand access to higher education, we would expand the resources that are truly responsible for providing this level of education. We would hire more professors, build more campuses and offer more classes.
This board cannot find any justification for this proposal other than economic expediency. The budget shortfalls have left us with few options; however, fundamentally undermining our educational experience in the name of profit should not be considered one of them.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board.