In the article “The Trouble With Online College, the author alludes to the fact that having taken online courses would make such a student’s studies  less effective in a real life setting. However, does that stem from the fact that online courses are not as effective, or rather that the students themselves may not be as academically equipped, even prior to taking those courses?

How would one put a measure to the cost-effectiveness of technological classroom advancements? As in, an argument might state that the money being funneled into providing classrooms with more advanced equipment is too much or too little. But is it more accurate to measure that through grades, student participation, and/or average test scores compared to other, less advanced classes?

The idea that Ivy League colleges provide trends that other colleges are likely to follow is supported by precedence. However, many of the policies Ivy Leagues put in place are not to be seen in other community or public colleges. Is Dean Kirschner’s assumption that Ivy League colleges will be followed as pioneers truly accurate?

Are credit hours likely to change in the coming future as a measure of how much “education” a student has received for a certain class?

Will MOOCs eventually grow into a developed hierarchy, just like regular public and private colleges? As in, will there eventually be non-open, merit based MOOCs that may not offer admission to certain students? If this is a potential factor in the future of education, what effect will this have on society’s interpretation of a degree?

Will the money that is being pumped into MOOCs eventually be repaid by students taking those same classes? Are MOOCs simply a long-term investment that will eventually grow to be something more than they are now?