Another excellent episode, gentlemen. Had a few thoughts to contribute. An interesting connection with distance learning is with home schooling. My "high school" was a school that was at once a boarding school, and at the same time fielded a correspondence program for home school families. This was an attempt to equip parents with a more robust curriculum and structured guidance, while still preserving the advantages of home schooling. I had to take standardized tests, received a diploma, etc. Its major disadvantage was also its major advantage, that being that an older high school student is simply not going to be taught by their parent who doesn't have more than a high school diploma either, and so I was largely self-taught, using the curriculum, through my high school years. This actually helped me in college, as I was far more self-motivated than many of my peers (for the first year, anyway!) Right now I work for a company that uses the same, rather innovative online format David described. The classrooms are virtual, where the students meet with the teacher at specific class times. The class size is limited to 20 students, and the teacher uses a number of visual elements to enhance learning, from power points *shudder* to virtual whiteboards that can actually be written on using a device that can be plugged into your computer. The best part is, they can pull from teachers all around the country, and so get their pick of the litter; some PhD's are even teaching our classes. This has the unfortunate side effect of making poor chaps like me, without professional teaching experience, undesirable, as I found out. At least they let me work in the office! This new technology is very innovative, and I think guards against some of what Michial fears. But, I am still not sold on the system of online education as an exclusive method. Personally I think embodiment is important. For one thing, if nonverbal communication is as important as many say, than why are we so keen to give it up? The brain in the jar argument is valid in this sense, to me. It also does kill smaller schools, as a parent can spend less at our school, and their kid doesn't have to leave the home, all while getting access to more expert teachers than the local school; while gives, it also takes away, so while I'm no Postmaniac, I do see it as a Faustian bargain of sorts.  On another personal note, some of the best interactions I ever had in college were in taking full advantage of a certain professor's office hours, something which you can't much do in the online format. Some seminaries that provide distance and online options have a restriction on how many courses can be taken by that method. This seems like a positive use of the medium, to me; someone can free up their schedule considerably by not taking all courses on campus, it provides a balance to the educational experience, and it also allows the school to regulate which courses are taken in this medium, i.e. Intro to OT is fine to take online, but a course on spiritual formation or preaching is not such a great idea. I even took two science courses online in college, because the on site instructor was, shall we say, a less than stellar adjunct, and I didn't want to waste more time and money than was necessary.

Gentleman, I have been listening to CHP since Ep1 and am finally getting around to commenting. Two things about online forums: 1. It was brought up as an advantage that online forums often bring out student interaction for some more than seminar discussion might. I might question if this is actually an advantage. I would argue that we are creating and sustaining a problem wherein younger people find their communication outlets primarily through technology. Of course, technological communication can be good, but not if it is allows a student to cover their deficiencies in face to face interaction. The demise formal training in rhetoric has led to generations of students who cannot speak. Moving academic discussion out of the seminar room and onto a computer screen furthers this downfall by allowing those students not inclined toward face to face personal interaction to avoid it. Seminar discussion requires the development of those skills, online forums make them seem irrelevant. I do not think that is a good thing. 2. However, there are many online programs that are moving to real time video lectures and discussions as forms of online education. Here, the teacher is not recorded, but on a live camera feed as are the students. This allows for spontaneity in lectures, face to face discussion, and the advantage of some of the technological helps (raising hands for questions) you all mentioned. I still strongly support in person education over any form of an online classroom, but I see live video feeds as a better middle road than recorded lectures and moderated discussion forums. Any thoughts? Also, how about an episode on the recent rise of Classical Christian education?

"We tend to treat others badly when we cannot observe the personal cost of our behaviour ..." Very true.  I immediately thought "Ring of Gyges".  This is from Herodotus.  (Glaucon is a character in the Republic, of course.)  But now I'm taking advantage of anonymity to embarrass you ... which maybe proves the point.  But, heck, you know a lot more than me about many things, and if I only agree is there any point in posting?  So, well, so what? I'm only about half-way through, but -- more usefully -- what I thought of was the "University of the Air" in Britain (now known as the Open University). http://www.open.ac.uk IIRC, this was set up to provide a university-level education over the "wireless" (radio) for people who missed out on that by one of Harold Wilson's Labour governments.  One relative of mine who was an academic, and who has a very dim view of the Labour Party, says it was the *only* good thing that government ever did.  AFAIK, the standard is pretty high and recognized as such.  They moved to TV broadcasts later on.  By now they're probably using online media -- I don't know.  They used to expect students to listen/watch broadcasts several times a week, read quite extensive hardcopy posted out to them, and meet once a week in rooms made available by local academic institutions.  Periodically, there'd be residential events.  The financial issues mentioned by Michial wouldn't be an issue, because besides the course fees (for those who can afford it) public money is made available.

The episode was great. But Michael is absolutely correct. You may believe that Technology is neutral, but Colleges only see it as a way of increasing profits. Presenting Kagan, etc is great, but I must confess that some of the worst lectures I slept through were given by tenured giants of my college, while some of the best were delivered by  the non-tenured faculty.  I think Nathan's wife's experience shows that Technology can be used wisely, but I wouldn't count on it. Didn't Bill Gates say something like we could pack even more kids online or in the lecture classroom to increase the "utility" of good teachers?  I think eventually Gates (and why is a Harvard dropout now an education expert?) and his cronies will just hire temps, record them and then charge fees to access the online content.  I mean we all know the end of education is a Job, so just record what's on the test, and let's get on with it! :-)

Personally, I'm waiting for the technology that will just download information directly into my brain.

If I listen tonight, will it inform my class on online learning tomorrow? Probably not, but I'm sure it will be enjoyable. Let's wait and see.