A few comments on this article: 1) "There is nothing that says you can't offer high quality education on a for-profit basis. The bottom line is what is the quality of the experience," George Geis, adjunct professor in the Anderson School of Business art UCLA. But without the involvement of eCollege, would UCLA have any distance learning degrees available? The University of California, as a whole, has lagged behind many other state universities in the field of distance learning. This is particularly problematic because of the impacted state of many of their programs. Do I think that for-profit education is the best system? ....No. But, if universities began to realize that there is a need for educating working adults, and provided a system for that endevor, there would be no for-profit education companies. 2) "Education professor Val Rust said one of the dangers of globalization is that education is increasingly being seen as a commodity." Education has always been a commodity. The difference is that globalization has made it a household commodity, where as before it was available, for the most part, to younger people from higher income families. The market place is demanding higher skilled and educated workers. There are many who find that the education they used to gain an entry level job twenty years ago, is not adaquate to rise to a higher level, or in some cases, even keep their present job. Globalization is not a danger to education, but an oppertunity to provide more diverse resources to a greater amount of people. 3)"Rust said that the 'eternal question' is how to balance the interests of academia and distance learning with the moneymaking interests of businesses involved in online education" Here's a suggestion: What if the University of California began to offer degrees by distance learning (beyond the MS in nursing). I guess it's easier to sit in an ivy covered tower, and pontificate on the distance learning providers. Just some thoughts.
