One of the dirty little secrets (ok, not really a secret) of the education system (higher or otherwise) is that it's not just about helping the students learn, but also verifying that they have done so and credentialing them. Online education can potentially be pretty good at helping students learn (although, even at that, it's much weaker at helping the less-self-motivated students learn; you might regard that as either a plus or a minus, I suppose).
It's a lot less good at verifying it, especially if there's credentialing involved. As soon as the verification becomes high-stakes (due to a resultant credential---grade, course credit, etc), cheating becomes a big problem, and one not easily surmounted within the context of the online learning environments that have sprung up so far.
So if something like Thrun's class is really going to "change higher learning forever", one of those changes may have to be a separation of the teaching/learning component and the verification/credentialing component. The teachers could then say, learn it or don't, I'll help but I'm not your taskmaster... and then if the students want to prove to anyone else that they learned something from it, they have to figure out some other way to do that, because transcripts won't cut it.
There are already systems in place to handle verified testing, like GRE and CPA exams. There are online courses that have homework and reading components online, but test offline.
For non-tests, students can and do cheat at regular Universities.
I completely agree that for this system to work, a verification/credentialing component is needed and I actually believe that the money will be there. Give away the lectures and problem assignments but make money off of more personal tutoring and the credentials.
* You have Joel Spolsky writing about CS grads who cannot even pass the FizzBuzz test
* You have companies like 37signals talking about some of their best hires not having any credentials at all
* You have Google (and now everyone else, it seems) giving intense testing to all potential hires -- if you already have the credentials to prove you can do the work, why do you need to be tested?
I feel the online schools have popped up at just the right time. The world is moving on from the traditional education accreditation model, as the idea of giving credentials has proven to not work (see above). However, you still need to be able to walk the walk, and taking courses online is one way to get there.
These classes aren't simply verified intelligence tests that employers can use to screen job applicants. If you learn something useful, you can use that knowledge to make money.
It's a lot less good at verifying it, especially if there's credentialing involved. As soon as the verification becomes high-stakes (due to a resultant credential---grade, course credit, etc), cheating becomes a big problem, and one not easily surmounted within the context of the online learning environments that have sprung up so far.
So if something like Thrun's class is really going to "change higher learning forever", one of those changes may have to be a separation of the teaching/learning component and the verification/credentialing component. The teachers could then say, learn it or don't, I'll help but I'm not your taskmaster... and then if the students want to prove to anyone else that they learned something from it, they have to figure out some other way to do that, because transcripts won't cut it.
Actually, I could kind of get behind that.