There can be great value in personal interaction. I agree that big lectures like described should and will die off. However, the fastest way to learn anything is to have a series of conversations with an expert. (I guess that could still be reproduced by videochat or something...) I understand this has long been the model in many UK schools.
All that said, in a virtual age it is perfectly possible for someone to learn with out any physical school or personal interaction, just slower.
<i>There can be great value in personal interaction. I agree that big lectures like described should and will die off. However, the fastest way to learn anything is to have a series of conversations with an expert. (I guess that could still be reproduced by videochat or something...) I understand this has long been the model in many UK schools.</i>
The long conversations with an expert are purely an Oxbridge thing, it costs waaay too much to do that for it to be worthwhile for students with less potential/no tradition of doing so.
"(I guess that could still be reproduced by videochat or something...)"
Even if it is delivered as videochat, the attention of the instructor is still a limited resource. And this is the value proposition of a 21st century university. I think this change to the MIT lecture format reflects an understanding of this. Now that MIT has made much of its content available as Podcasts, etc., they are looking for ways they can provide more value to the people on campus.
Absolutely, and that is great for students. It could be that universities will become more relevant in a digital age. In the past, a student sitting in a gigantic lecture hall didn't have too much advantage over one just reading a book (and not paying tuition). If universities move to giving student 1 on 1 (or N on 1) interaction, someone in a university will have a big advantage over someone outside.
All that said, in a virtual age it is perfectly possible for someone to learn with out any physical school or personal interaction, just slower.