"They could let everyone in, they don't have to pass everyone. Let the cream rise to the top and let everyone else drop out. As long as the courses were rigorous enough then the degree would maintain it's credibility."
Most colleges just don't have room for everyone. If they opened up the flood-gates of admission, many people, whom would otherwise be able to get into college, would be left out in the cold because they allowed everyone in (even people that do not qualify and or will eventually drop out).
many people...would be left out...because they allowed everyone in
Logical paradoxes aside, surely the benefit of online teaching is that you can do basic filtering as easily as you can disseminate the coursework. Of course, that means employing crude metrics like multiple-choice tests, but such metrics play a large part in the existing admissions process.
I had to take an online course last year. I found it interesting because the instructor had questions on the exams where we had to write essays on a certain topics. The online course I took before that, 3 years earlier, only consisted of multiple choice and True/False.
I talked to the professor after the course just to make sure I understood the content, and one of his remarks was that student's essays where too short. The problem, I think, was that text boxes were ~10 rows, so the students would fill in those 10 rows and think they were done.
Online learning is still new, but I think there are tons of improvements that can be made in order to make it a bit easier for everyone to understand.
It's a virtual college they're talking about. You take the courses from your living room or whatever. You don't actually go to the college. So yes, there IS room.
There is physical/virtual room, however, the professors may not have the ability to handle all the students. This does not differ from the 200 student classes at a regular university, but many on-line professors do all the work them selves- no student aides.
I have heard mixed reviews from many academics on the subject of online instruction. Some think it "spoils the crop", while others think it helps those in difficult situations- where going to a university is not an option.
I feel that education is education, in that person will only get back what they put in. Hybrid, IMO, provide a nice middle ground. There types of programs allow a student to do readings, tests, and other assignments online, but at some point require them to meet with the professor to go over- in more depth- some of the subject content. Again, a person will only get out of this what they put in, so if they meet with the professor and ask no questions they will get little in return.
There is physical/virtual room, however, the professors may not have the ability to handle all the students.
A single, quality professor is needed to generate content. Content scales.
An army of cheap drones are needed to grade, assuming all grading is done manually. You could probably get a grader for 50 students for $3000-5000 [1]. That's less than $100/student. As long as students pay more than $100/course, online classes will scale.
[1] This is the pay a PTL will receive for teaching a single in-person math course.
Most colleges just don't have room for everyone. If they opened up the flood-gates of admission, many people, whom would otherwise be able to get into college, would be left out in the cold because they allowed everyone in (even people that do not qualify and or will eventually drop out).