I'll add to the thread drift.
The current college model - in which middle class families face ever increasing costs (whether public school or private) which are bordering on crushing - needs to change. One potential disruptor of the current model is the on-line course.
While much of the critics of on-line offerings are coming from those who feel that their jobs are threatened (just like all other technological disruptions throughout history), I think there are two central obstacles which much be overcome before the current four year college model can be changed: quality of the courses and jobs.
The on-line offerings of companies such as Coursera are not the on-line offerings available five years ago. So much better, deeper, and better organized now. (I have taken literally dozens of these courses - not at the depth of a true college class; for me, I treat the offerings as an on-demand Discovery Channel. But, others can take the same classes to the same depth as any college class - and do. The message boards can get very spirited and detailed; even local study groups can be found; TAs respond to questions (professors too occasionally); the large class size and diversity of the class (both in geography and background) can really add depth to many classes (for example, in a class in World History a "classmate" from Iran went out and photographed the ruins of an ancient "Silk Road" way station and posted it for everyone.)
i have found some some fabulous lecturers on Coursera (and some really poor ones also). In general, I find the quality of the lecturer is generational - the older the professor, the more stilted and boring (not universally, just generally). Conversely, the younger the professor, the more adept at using this new medium. (A great on-line class is not as easy as setting up the camera and filming the lecturer; it requires use of all sorts of new technology to keep the viewer engaged.) i have taken classes from professors from Cal Tech, Duke, Columbia, Princeton, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, Tokyo, Maryland, Stanford, and more. The material offered from great lecturers equaled or even exceeded what I received in my college classes (a century ago). So, my point is that the quality of the material offered in many Coursera classes is equal to that offered in person. (For those that criticize on-line classes based upon the professors inability to actually read and react to his audience, I say that a lecturer speaking in person in a 300 person class doesn't read or react to his audience either - it doesn't matter whether the lecturer is a TA or a full prof. Indeed, one of the worst lecturers, imo, was Peter Schiller of Yale.)
Fimding employers willing to enthusiastically accept on-line learning as a total substitute for in class learning is evolving. Some major employers (e.g., I believe Google and AT&T are two examples) have announced support for this type of learning, so the trend is just beginning on the job acceptance front.
As as one poster noted, if a kid can get his General classes done on-line while living at home, this would save a middle class family tens of thousands of dollars. Moreover, a university where freshmen don't set foot on campus, could actually expand their student population size in the remaining three classes and expand their revenue base without a proportional increase in overhead - a win-win for the school and the families. (For athletes, this would need to be modified because they need to be on campus as freshmen. So, for athletes, on-line learning would evolve differently from the regular student body.)
There are several emerging models in the marketplace; college is evolving and we'll see which model will gain traction. At least there are ideas out there which could reduce the economic burden of college for many families.
