University of the People - providing low cost online degree courses worldwide

The University of the People will "open its doors" (i.e. take enrolments for a September 2009 start) in April 2009. According to the organisation's web site:

"The University of the People is a nonprofit organization devoted to providing universal access to quality, online post-secondary education. The organization, founded by Shai Reshef, is comprised of volunteers from all around the world. Many of these volunteers are appointed faculty at universities; others are active professionals-business administrators, librarians, computer programmers, economists, and educators. They share the belief that all people should have the opportunity to change their lives and contribute to their communities, as well as the understanding that the path to societal and individual prosperity is through education. We are certain that our collective efforts as volunteers can be decisive in developing and executing the programs through which millions of people previously denied access to higher education will be able to earn accredited academic degrees."

UoP (a not-for-profit)  is coy about costs:

"The University of the People plans at this stage to charge only nominal application fee ($15-$50) and examination fees ($10-$100), which will be adjusted on a sliding scale based on the student's country of origin."

and will start with two degree courses, a BA in Business Administration and a BSc in Computer Science, running over ~four years for full-time students. Currently, UoP says it "intends to apply for accreditation from recognized authorities as soon as possible".

Shai Reshef, the founder, is a serial entrepreneur with a very strong track record in making this kind of thing work. For example, a Netherlands-based for-profit company Reshef chaired, and which was subsequently sold to Laureate Inc. [PDF], was the delivery partner for a range of Liverpool University online masters courses.

Comments

[Alan Cooper]

It may be of interest to note that Mr Shai Reshef's main enterprise, cramster.com, appears to be a website designed at least in part to enable students to get help with their homework, including the collection and publication of solutions to the even numbered questions from textbooks that already come packaged with complete worked solutions for their odd numbered problems. Since the even-numbered questions are often used for assignments I think it is reasonable to interpret the publication of their solutions as facilitation of cheating.

Having been challenged by Seb on this, I would have to agree that of course homework of all kinds is by its nature done on the "honour system", and most instructors encourage students to work to some extent cooperatively. But there is a difference between struggling together to solve a problem or discuss an issue, and just copying a prepared answer or essay. Facilitating the latter undermines both the learning and evaluative value of the exercise and so I do think it can fairly be referred to as cheating.

[Virtually Scholastic]

If technology is enabling students to source answers to static, reprinted questions, and assuming that the evolution of technology and its applications cannot be stopped, then isn't the problem with the method of teaching rather then the technology (or the facilitators of said technology)?

[Alan Cooper]

I have no interest in defending any particular "method of teaching", nor in blaming technology (or its facilitators) for its abuse. But the site in question does more than help students to learn and cooperate (which is admirable if the cooperation is directed towards enhancing their learning). Unfortunately it (the site by its design and advertising, not the technology per se) also encourages students to cooperate in a less than productive manner - and seeks to profit from that counter-productive activity. Yes, the solutions to any published exercise are going to be somewhere, and for any exercise, published or not, someone can be found to provide a solution. But purchasing and submitting the work of someone else as one's own is still, I hope, generally regarded as cheating. And I hope we all agree that encouraging students to cheat is not the best way to give voice to a difference of opinion regarding paedagogy.