Home > Students > The $7,000 Master’s Degree That’s Scaring Colleges

Comments 4 Comments

The Georgia Institute of Technology rocked the higher education world when it announced plans to offer a fully online master’s degree in computer science for roughly one-seventh the price of its on-campus equivalent – less than $7,000.

The project is powered by a joint venture with Udacity, an online higher-education course provider that stands to earn 40 percent of the tuition revenues. The AT&T Corporation, which is providing two-thirds of the estimated ramp-up costs, expects to funnel existing employees through the program and recruit new ones at the back-end of it.

Reaction to the news has been mixed.

Online education advocates are excited about what they see as an opportunity for broad access to substantially more affordable higher learning.

Others worry that the wholesale democratization of higher education will lead to deteriorating outcomes and the diluted quality of advanced degrees—particularly as a larger number of students are attracted to the courses. There is also a fair amount of academic carping about the competition—how joint ventures such as this will hijack resources that might otherwise be used to develop and deliver the staff’s own groundbreaking programs.

The notion of dot-edus teaming up with dot-coms isn’t novel. For years, schools have been pandering for corporate cash to bankroll special projects. (Lately the money is also used to bridge operating revenue shortfalls.) But as to the matter of diverted resources, I don’t buy it. In fact, I would argue that the requisite capital for transforming today’s schools into tomorrow’s cutting-edge academies has long been under foot.

Where Colleges Have Gone Wrong

The core mission of higher education is to deliver knowledge. However, in order to fund that mission, the schools have depended on a variety of sideline businesses. Not only is this unrelated and unrelenting pursuit of revenues a distraction, it also consumes capital that could have been used to improve educational content, modernize delivery systems and reverse the trend of escalating tuition prices.

An example is the cash that’s deeply buried in campus real estate. If one of the many hopes that parents have for their college-bound kids is for them to learn how to function on their own, shouldn’t the schools help? Dormitories, cafeterias and other holdings can be repurposed by others into independent apartments, grocery stores, bistros and even, conference centers and incubators for fledgling ventures.

Even more resources can be made available by consolidating the wastefully duplicative administrative functions that exist among local and regional schools. Hospitals moved in this direction when government reimbursement and private insurer payment rates decreased in the 1980s. Many of the institutions that participate in the healthcare systems we know today—whether through strategic affiliations or mergers—retain their individual areas of expertise.

It’s time for the schools to follow suit.

However, there is no sense in liquidating real estate holdings and eliminating redundancies unless institutional academia accepts the fact that times have changed and so too must they. Otherwise, all the asset and operational restructures in the world won’t amount to much more than burning the furniture just to stay warm.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: iStockphoto

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Tracy Tanner

    Love it! Where do I sign up?

  • Donald Summers

    All very correct; higher ed leaders are stuck in physical plant arms race (along with suffering from a dose of edifice complex and the ills of sports boosterism), and it will take a disruptive innovation– perhaps this or something like it– to reshape the business model and incentives.

    Excellent insights. Much of the conversation around sky-high tuitions is missing of insights like several provided here. Bravo.

    • Gerri Detweiler

      Thanks for commenting Donald. We agree that Mitchell Weiss is providing insights that are often overlooked in the debate over college costs.

      And personally I can’t get over the dorms most students live in now…nothing like the closet I shared with my roommate in college.

  • reynaldo

    Having done my m.s. in penn state on the #1 AE college in the country. I just cant see how this will provide the same level of education. I used to spend 10 hours a week in meetings with my thesis advisor. Some others at the grad students office. Ansd some more meeting with professors in search for jobs. Going to conventions with my fellow grad .

    Online?

    At that point just go to disneyland and get a mickey mouse masters….

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team