As a French person my first reaction to the title was "that's awfully expensive!". Then I thought about the US education system and thought "Oh, the title must actually imply that it's cheap…". I still had to go read the article to make sure. And then I learned that it's actually an online master. So my (second) first reaction was that it's cool to be able to get a master's degree from a top university from almost anywhere in the world, but then I realized that the people who would benefit the most from this are in developing countries and $6,600 is already way, way, way too much there (and that's not taking into account the fact that these courses are video-driven and that available internet broadband might also be a problem). So I guess that's not really who it is intended for, which implies that it is a "second class" degree for US student. Not sure how I should feel about this.
It's not necessarily as bad a picture as it seems from outside - I have a Master's degree in Computer science that I'd estimate cost me about $8000 (just for the MS part, the BS before that was mostly free due to scholarships). I didn't go to a prestigious university, but I do think I ended up with a good education. At least in my case, the fact that my university is mostly unknown has proven pretty much irrelevant in terms of getting a job, so I don't feel that I was disadvantaged by not getting my degree from a place like MIT.
You have to realize that European college education is heavily subsidized for their citizens. If a student from a developing country comes to Europe to study, they'll have to pay the full prize, which often comes down to €10,000+/year.
Do you know in which countries it's this way? The information I found about Germany I found says that they also don't have to pay tuition fees. I guess most countries don't need extra fees for foreigners because of the language barrier.
We used to have free university education for anyone in the world. But that's now changed so that anyone not in the EU, European Economic Area or Switzerland have to pay tuition.
A three year Bachelor program would cost about 63000 USD for anyone not in those countries that are part of the above organizations.
Tiny liberal arts college in PA called Moravian. I think they broke 60k this year, I graduated a year ago now.
Albeit, that factors in the 2k and 8k per semester for food / housing (and the school requires you live on campus if your home is >20 miles away, and you can't get an apartment off) and you have to take that meal plan.
It is like $12k in classes per semester, plus the room / board, and a bunch of other line item expenses that add up.
Even universities in USA has two tuition rates, the in-state tuition being 1/3 of the "normal" rate, but non-citizens can also avail the in-state tuition if they have residency.
You're wrong. At least in France, education is free (well, almost, we have something like 200€ / year of administrative fees), for foreigners too. Depending on which school/uni you enter, you might even get a stipend and/or a room.
re: Second-class degree
Geogia Tech's engineering program ranks extremely high in the U.S. and the United States' academic institutions rank extremely high on various world-wide charts.
Having spent a long time on the inside track of the Silicon Valley hiring processes, I can vouch that getting a degree from a prestigious institution really does fast-track your interview, at least when it comes to the screening or pre-screening phase.
$6,600 will at the current engineering salaries be at most a month and a half of your future net salary in the USA, or about 4-5 months worth of rent in San Francisco, so it is overall a very small forward investment to make if you live in the US.
I doubt the degree will be treated as "second class," this will occur only if the words get out that the program is somehow easier to finish and I strongly doubt that. If anything, without in-person TA-ing and live peer interaction, it will be harder to complete some of the courses.
re: Cost of graduate-level education in the USA
I understand that EU-citizens get free Masters' education. This is somewhat a side-effect of the EU-wide Bologna process, which promoted everyone's Bachelors degree into a Masters by adding a year's worth more of education and introducing a credit-system. If you are a non-EU citizen trying to get a degree in the EU, you will be paying much more than $6600 in many countries, including the socialist-leaning Scandinavia.
Any US citizen can give FAFSA a try and (from memory) more than half of the undergraduate student body receives some form of financial aid from the government. There are reputable sources that say that paradoxically the generous FAFSA grants are partially responsible for a tuition inflation, but this debate is completely off-topic.
If you go into any community with a lot of college students / new grads you'll hear a lot of complaints about how its impossible to qualify for FAFSA, scholarships, financial aid, etc.
I'm a middle-class white male and was incredibly worried that I'd hit FAFSA's 'blind spot': our family has a home and a stable middle-class income, but not enough to comfortably afford even a public college education (for our European friends: public colleges offer lower tuition for students residing in the same state as the college because they are partially funded by the state -- instead of paying 50K tuition, I'd be paying around 20K). Furthermore, I was by no means a prodigy: I did well enough in high school to more or less choose the college I went to (I'm from Virginia, and our public colleges are some of the best in the country) I certainly wasn't being courted or showered with incentives.
I managed to still get a pretty fair shake from FAFSA (that 20K number was knocked down to around 11K) and was able to secure some elective scholarships. America's college system isn't some bureaucratic hellhole destined to crush the spirits of its entrants; its just coping with some changes it wasn't really designed to handle.
I was middle class(maybe lower middle class), and my entire education end up paid for. Not only that, but after work study, I actually made enough money to live on without having to get an outside job. Students taking out these huge loans should just consider a state school, or to put in for scholarships.
I understand that EU-citizens get free Masters' education. This is somewhat a side-effect of the EU-wide Bologna process, which promoted everyone's Bachelors degree into a Masters by adding a year's worth more of education and introducing a credit-system.
This isn't true. I'm from England (hence EU Citizen) and Batchelors and Masters degrees are two different things.
I have had to pay for both my Batchelors and my Masters degree - having said that the government does offer a basic loan for Batchelors degrees BUT there isn't any funding for a Masters degree, you have to pay that yourself.
Europeans don't have to worry that much about prestige, since in most (Western) EU countries, the quality of education is mandated and upheld by the Department of Education.
In Europe school actually cost this much (average), with campus and classroom. Maybe, the question is asked the wrong way in this article.
Why does education cost student 50000$ a year in US?
I was going to say the same thing. I come from a country where Higher Education is free(yes yes I know - paid for by the taxpayer), but I have personally studied in the UK paying 3450 pounds a year (~5300 USD) in one of the best universities in that country. Yes I know it went up now to 9000 pounds(~13600 USD) but still, it's a lot less than what they charge for education in the US, which I don't understand.
In my country it's 0 cost for the student.
Apparently the average cost the government pays per year per student is around ~3000 USD. Medical students cost our government ~7000 USD per year.
And as far as I know, professors are still very well paid, so I still fail to see why would the education in the US cost so much money.
There are no answers to the difference in tuition prices that don't lead to uncomfortable social comparisons of two countries. It depends on if you believe education markets are efficient or not, meaning the true value will be reflected in the price. Two things that would make a degree worth less are limited access to education and limited social mobility for degree holders. Free also does not mean unlimited access.
What do you mean by unlimited access? Sure, there is only a limited amount of university places, but it does not matter what is your social situation or how much money you currently have - you can study law or medicine just the same as a rich guy, as long as you have good grades that allow you to get into the university in the first place. But if you did study hard and got good grades, any degree you could choose is 100% free.
By unlimited access I mean discrimination. Two key tools used to hide discrimination are extra-curriculars and subjective entrance interviews, both of which can be present in totally free schools.
In Ireland for well over 90% of degree courses it's blind marked exams all the way. In Britain apart from Oxbridge it is again exam marks all the way (big apart from). In France I think ENA is the only school with entrance exams/interviews but much like Oxbridge acceptance means you are part of the ruling/upper class unless you choose to throw it away. German universities don't do entrance interviews, they do exam ranking and brutal weedout classes.
The USA is more or less unique in the blatancy of the class values implicit in its university entrance requirements. The cancer spreads, much like professional graduate degrees but it is still most obvious in the land of origin. Gotta keep them Jews out, or nowadays them Asians. It's about the right sort of extracurricular, don't you know?
They are not present in my country. All that matters is just your grades from the Matura exams(think English GCSE exams). It does not matter if you were a golden medalist seven times or ran your own company by the age of 14. On top of that, the Head of the university normally can assign an additional 4 places per year as he/she wishes, so they usually go to people who are talented,but happened to get bad grades in their exams, for any reasons. This is the only moment when your personal circumstances can have any effect on your place at university. Other than that, it does not matter whatever you are rich,poor, white or black - if you got good grades, you will get a place.
It would seem that the market is not efficient, since the average cost of tertiary education has risen a lot in the last decade(s) (from what I've read).
This is completely right. Most of the commenters here keep thinking about it from the perspective of people in countries that already have great access to education, but disruption begins with people who don't already have access to a product or are struggling to afford the existing alternatives.
In the case of education, these people are most likely to reside in the developing world - there are billions of people in places like the BRIC nations for whom $6,600 is a really reasonable price to access education over the internet without having to leave their current homes, families and commitments. Not only that, they get to put Georgia Tech on their resume and apply for jobs domestically and overseas (especially in the US) where people will recognise their qualifications, even if they have an online masters and not a masters.
The scale of something like this is difficult to fathom - we are talking many times the population of the US and Europe combined who could benefit from something like this. This is why we are witnessing something truly revolutionary.
I agree with your general theory, but I don't think $6,600 is "reasonable" for a college degree in BRIC nations. I think even in the more developed countries in Europe that's at the high-end of what it costs to get one. It only seems reasonable for an American, who usually pays what - $100,000-$200,000?
$2,000 is what I'd call "reasonable", although if we're really thinking about truly revolutionizing education for the other 3+ billion people, it needs to go even cheaper than that. Everyone should get access to the same level of quality education, and their financial situation should not be a major impediment.
As someone from one of the BRIC countries (now living in the US for the past decade), I can tell you that $6,600 would be a ridiculously affordable option for tens of thousands of students in these markets.
Brazil, in particular, has the exact opposite model of the US. Public undergrad schools are generally weak (with very few exceptions). If your parents can't afford to send you to a private high school, you'll probably have a tough time ranking well on the top public universities (which are not only free, but normally ranked lot better).
Not surprisingly, some public universities receive 10-20x more candidates/spot than other private options.
MOOC and initiatives like this pilot from Georgia Tech have the potential to change this picture radically in the next 10-15 years.
Instead of spending $100,000+ for a second class degree, some students will opt to spend a fraction of this, for a top tier US school. And you could use the difference to complement your education in other different ways - in-person courses, unpaid internships abroad, trips, etc.
Probably still not the same as going in-person to a top university school, but still revolutionary. The goal shouldn't be to send everybody to the best universities in the world (which is an impossible and unrealistic goal), but to give the best education that each person can have.
Keep in mind that it is $6,600 for a graduate (post-Bachelors) degree, not a college degree.
In the U.S. a Bachelors degree lasts 8-9 semesters and equips you for work far better than the 3-year Bologna "equivalent."
The Masters degree thus can focus almost exclusively on the graduate-level courses, with the exception of some refreshers.
You have to compare the $6,600 to the cost of living in the United States.
U.S. census Bureau's poverty threshold is $11,500/year income. In this income-level very little goes to taxes. So this program is roughly 7 months of minimum wage in the US.
Speaking as someone living in a country with no to low tuition, when I read the the title of the submission my reaction was "$6,600, wow that's expensive", while probably the opposite was intended.
I'm in favor of furthering online education, moocs, educational content in general and even certification programs along these lines.
But I also have to ask: If this degree costs 20% of a traditional Master's education, is it even worth 20% as much? The degree clearly states "Online Master".
We might see a value developing here, but there is an equal chance that the early students get ripped off big time. They might learn a lot, but are they really getting their money's worth in additional skill marketability?
While I agree, in that attending college is in part the social experience in interacting with peers, one-on-one time with lecturers/TAs and lab work, this is a step forward to allowing anyone who wants to learn have that opportunity, and use the technology we have to improve on that technology so future-learning just gets better and better. Tiny steps.
An enterprising person may well setup a facilitator experience, where students gather to watch online lectures and do group labs, at a fraction of the cost (plus not having to pay board away from home) and having the best materials to work with.
This hits on what I think is key to breaking out of the borked education system. You need to put like minded learners together with bountiful educational texts and resources to solve the problems both independently and together.
It is less about stuffing random facts in the brain than developing group oriented problem solving skills in a specialized discipline.
really troubles me, but in this case you're unfortunately right.
I should note that I'm ignoring the instance of "might" here because I've encountered many 'traditional' masters students that haven't exactly "mastered" their material by the end of their studies either, so I'm assuming the differences in this aspect will be negligible. Either way, the traditional application process students have to go through is largely what bases the perceived weight of degree, so this course still keeping that 'metric' in-tact should help with its 'marketability'. However this program will still face an uphill battle regardless, simply because its biggest problem is it being 'non-traditional'; which is unfortunate.
Just to put this in comparison - I recently took a two-week networking course (in the United States) for $7300. While this was in-person, with labs/instruction from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM every day, and the class was limited to twelve students, it does put things into perspective.
The real cost, as always, in getting a degree is the students time. Someone capable of getting a Masters degree, can, without too much effort, make $100K/year pretty quickly (If income is what they are interested in).
This is why education is normally inexpensive in other countries - students are having to forego all that income, so it's in the interest of the country, to encourage their populace to become educated - so they subsidize.
I think part of the reason why Education is so expensive in the United States, is they have a fairly regressive tax system, with poor social systems (in comparison to other first world countries). Health Care is expensive, Education is expensive. It's a very difficult country to be poor in.
I'd love it if the $6,600 Master Degree started a disruptive trend.
I have been contemplating between getting an MBA or a PhD in software engineering (because I want to teach) for the past few years.
For the latter it would be strictly because I want to create something, be innovative, and give back to my industry. The former - you're really paying for the connections - and possibly a few lessons on economics that have grown dry in your head.
I am justifying the price tag on a two year (night) MBA because I feel like I am getting into that "club" that most of the bigwigs are in.
The common knowledge I've heard about MBAs is that, as you said, you're paying for the connections -- and that the only valuable connections come from the pedigree of a Top 20 MBA program. If you're not pursuing an "elite" program (I'm sure 95% of MBA curriculums are equivalent no matter where you enroll, but the alumni certainly are not), then it's likely not worth the time or money.
The variables obviously are Where are you getting the MBA (Ivy League MBAs, even evening ones, have more value), what is the price tag - there is a big difference between a $50K MBA and $200K MBA, and what field you'll be going into.
MBA has very little (some might almost say negative) value in Silicon Valley startup world, but obviously more value in mature companies, or companies that are transitioning from startup->mature (possible exception being the CEO, VP of BizDev/Marketing and possibly VP of Product Management). MBAs have close to zero value for people who wish to be simultaneously tactical and technical. I've never seen a network engineer, or firmware developer get any value out of their MBA. It's really for people who are either going to go into the business side of a company, and/or go into management.
Also - it's important to note if you'll have to quit working while you are getting your MBA - that makes the credential doubly expensive.
I disagree that MBAs have a negative value in the Silicon Valley. Most investors I know value someone having one business person on the team early on. This person can help drive the validation/marketing/sales side of the business plan forward. People with hybrid skills (MBA + engineering degree) are from my personal experience highly appreciated.
I didn't say "negative value in Silicon Valley" (it definitely isn't), but, "Silicon Valley Startup world" (I.E. the first six-eighteen months when the technology is being built).
At one very prominent startup that I worked for, lead by some very, very well known executives (who are extraordinarily prominent in the valley today), there was a general position for the first two years of our company, "Hire no MBAs." They really believed that the MBA was a negative at that phase of the company's history, and were looking for Programmers, designers, coders, systems administrators, DBAs, etc.
As an Australian gazing across the pond, it's weird to see what the fuss is about.
My alma mater (UWA) has a Master of Professional Engineering degree which I can complete for $15k AUD (and since they guarantee entry to their BCompSci grads, I'm considering it). Sydney Uni have a Master of Project Management that I costed at 20k AUD (edit: I was quite wrong, it's closer to 45k).
And the FEE-HELP program means that, if I chose, I could do it without paying up front.
Public higher education is a mess in many ways. But sometimes, boy, I really do live in the lucky country.
You have to keep in mind that Georgia Tech is one of the best engineering schools in the U.S. (disclosure: I am not in any way related to this institution) and consequently worldwide.
$15K AUD is very close to ~$14.5K USD. This is less than half of that.
I think we need to have some A|B testing around this.
While I am a huge believer in this, my little finger tells me that Online students will perform worse when it comes to exam time.
There is an energy to synchronous group learning you can't duplicate via websites. I remember when I was in college and university, a bunch of us bonded a bit and got pretty competitive (in a friendly way) when it came to our grades and test results. If you developed a good relationship with your prof, they would often have high expectations of you and you didn't want to let them down. These emotional connections can be pretty inspiring to kids ages 18-22.
If they want to be competitive with campus students, they need to either duplicate these emotions online (via virtual worlds?) or perhaps increase the workload and adjust the bell curve so students fail out quickly unless they take it very seriously.
this is huge. I've been saying (as well as probably most other coders), that education should go in this direction. It just seems obvious. I even did a Bachelors paper on this subject (in combination with FOSS) and studied the amount of savings it would lead to if implemented for high school education.
Additionally, I graduated with a BA in 2011 and the entire process felt archaic to me, filled with wasted time, and more importantly costing lots of my hard-earned money. The only way I was able to get the degree was with help of family and by taking CLEP tests for over 70 hours. (rougly equivalent to 23 courses), the CLEP tests only costed in total around $500, and allowed me to skip 2 years of study. (so if anyone hasnt heard of CLEP and is low on funds and wants to get a degree I would highly recommend them :)
I'm definately going to look into this in more detail though, getting a Masters would be nice and if all it costed was $6,600 for the 2 years (and study was remote) I think i'd be able to manage it as a full-time developer with a family.
Looking back on it now, this experience had far more in common with the Middle Ages than the world of 2013. What's the difference between watching a lecture in an auditorium and watching HD-quality video in one's living room or beach cabana?
There's no difference at all but for any even mildly ambitious undergrad in a STEM field, physically attending a research university is an opportunity to get involved, however peripherally, in such research. For someone pursuing a graduate degree this seems more like a requirement rather than a serving suggestion.
Georgia Tech is not a respected engineering school just because it does a decent job of fielding 500-person classes.
> There's no difference at all but for any even mildly ambitious undergrad in a STEM field, physically attending a research university is an opportunity to get involved, however peripherally, in such research.
This is precisely the point. Our undergraduates go mostly up to Med School, and having a reaearch paper published is almost a requirement to get into any decent medical program.
Also, in an online course the interaction between is of a wholly different kind that a traditional brick-and mortar university. The social network that you build while at uni is part of why you go there in the first place.
I opted out of college. Sometimes it bums me out though, because I feel like by learning on the job, I reached the 10 thousand hour mark too early. And it's annoying, I have this savings account of thousands of dollars, and it's like, what am I supposed to do with it? If I had went to college, I'd have been in debt from the get go, so it would be more motivating to pay off like $100k of student loans. This $6,600 college course sounds like a scam. How are you going to be motivated to pay off loans, if there are none? At least it's better than getting paid to learn.
Maybe this depends greatly on the particular discipline you're in. In the US it's not that difficult to get your Master's degree in C.S. for free + monthly stipend, at least in my experience.
I know a number of people across the natural science disciplines who TA'd / RA'd their way through Grad School. I might be misunderstanding how common this is but it seems any discussion of Grad School cost should discuss the fact that natural science students will often get paid to go to Grad School in the US.
Please let me know if this applies in the case outside of being a PhD student.
The US educational system has a tradition of issuing a Masters as a consolation price to PhD dropouts who've done enough of the coursework/research.
Bona-fide Masters programs with scholarships/stipends are very hard to find. If there's counterexamples I would like to know about them. From my experience, these are very rare.
My (Terminal at that institution) masters was paid for completely, as well as being paid a salary. In STEM fields I'm not sure I know anyone who didn't have their MS paid for. Sure, some professors will push you to get a Ph.D. but you always have the option of just writing your thesis and finishing.
Thats a good point. Most of the folks I'm talking about were in my PhD cohort and we all decided the PhD wasn't for us (My PhD program left a very bad taste in my mouth towards higher ed). I've known a few Masters students who got stipends but the majority were PhD students.
My understanding is that this is only true if you are on the PhD track. Natural science departments subsidize the master's students with the expectation that most will labor for the professors for 3-5 years as part of their PhD research. The TAing does not actually cover the costs.
With the internet, most education is free. When we pay education, we mainly pay for 1) exclusivity (there are not a million other people attending Harvard) and 2) standards (standard exams within an accredited curriculum, so the GPA and major will mean something).
Increasing the amount of online education preserves the standards, but removes / broadens the exclusivity. I am not sure this is a great thing for people from Georgia Tech; they now have to compete with a lot more people for similar jobs.
An online education with tough admissions would be better if one tries to preserve the brand (and thus provide insurance* to the program trainees).
* by insurance, I refer to insurance of employability, like Peter Thiel described in his PandoMonthly interview.
There's always going to be a place for University's to exist, there's certain amounts of skills that require a practical experience that they can provide, but for most courses shifting it online makes more sense. The costs are lower, it's easier to manage, it encourages more people to gain a formal education and hopefully strengthen their careers.
It's going to be interesting seeing which ones will offer an actual bit of paper at the end that says 'I'm educated in X by Y' and how much it's going to cost. $7k for a degree from a prestigious school is going to be a popular option, so whilst they lose the high amount per student, they gain it back in larger student numbers.
This is just the beginning. I can see a future where top ranked universities offer online degrees at a small fraction of the current prices.
In fact I think the pricing will be separated out so that the lectures are 100% free and you pay for examinations or for tutoring or for small group mentoring with professors.
The logical conclusion is mega-universities that teach to millions of people in multiple countries around the world and out-compete existing universities leading to a large percentage of current universities being shut down or used only for courses where in-person training is necessary (for example medicine, some engineering courses etc).
Before they wiped out college tuitions costs back in Ireland in 1996 the cost of doing a an excellent CS degree in UCC (http://ucc.ie) was about 2000 Irish pounds (about $2800 at the time) a year for 4 years.
If you were wanted to do medicine it was a whopping $5000 or so a year over about 5 years.
There were lesser hidden costs (200 for a registration fee kind of thing) but thats about it.
We considered that outlandish at the time.
The costs of the US education system baffle me on a daily basis.
However I don't see online courses as the way to go. Most people don't complete them.
A rich modern society will spend most of its money on two things: education and health-care. The appetite for education will increase so quickly that in-person degree programs will continue to do okay as premium offerings even as online degrees flourish. Long term online will "win" but it will take decades. Look at how few 100% telecommute there really are. Yes the trend is there but the actual transition is slow, consider the rush hour traffic in any big city.
"We’re not yet ready to announce a specific program cost, but the plan is to offer the Georgia Tech OMS CS for a total cost of under $7,000—a fraction of the cost of Georgia Tech’s on-campus program and even less than that of comparable private universities."
That FAQ has a lot more meat than the LinkedIn article...
Ha ha, had to chuckle at that one. It's one of UK's "best kept" secrets, I suppose ;) . The course materials are bloody fantastic, and in terms of value of money, spot on :)
The author doesn't mention a lot of journalists will be replaced by robots too. He thinks the Internet was a great tidal wave for the profession... Just wait for the next auto summarization breakthroughs.
Does anyone know if this degree will count as masters in front of USA immigration department? The only reason I see for getting the masters degree is getting into the EB2 bracket for green card.
Well in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5757226 a lost of posters were arguing how brain work could never be replaced, nor could technology be used to lower the need for highly-educated creative professionals.
Professor/teacher is pretty much the quintessential example of highly-educated brain work, isn't it ?
> He estimated the school would have to hire one full-time teacher for every 100 online students as opposed to one full-time teacher for every 10 or 20 students who study on campus.
Also from the article:
> Looking back on it now, this experience had far more in common with the Middle Ages than the world of 2013. What's the difference between watching a lecture in an auditorium and watching HD-quality video in one's living room or beach cabana?
This is the situation that was hit at the end of the Roman Empire, the beginning of what would later turn into the dark-ages. Plenty of highly educated people, ever more and more, and ... no reason to have them. No reason to have all that many farmers either. This was a result of using iron-age technology to it's fullest potential. You should see some Roman surgery tools, they're amazing. They're much more specialized than "our" surgery tools. Surgeons today have 10 kinds of knives, syringes, stitches, compresses, all very general tools. Roman surgeons had hundres of tools, each a weird metal thingamabob specifically built for one singular procedure. We use special tools today in some cases, but mostly very general tools like 5 sizes of the same gripper, tweezers, ... that sort of thing.
They used iron to it's fullest potential, and we use computers, but the end result is the same : massive population numbers, yet the economy only justifies ~1% to maybe 5% of the population, with most of even that employed in either the government itself or the military. At some point, even slaves become a losing proposition (better to give those precious jobs to family, and keep in mind that Roman slaves had rights, and were more akin to someone holding a job. I'm not saying slaves in the Roman empire had rights comparable to Americans (they lacked voting, for example), but they certainly couldn't be killed randomly or on a whim). No goods shortages, quite the opposite : almost universal abundance (not for expensive goods, but things like food, clothing, furniture, cutlery, apartments, ... no shortages). Not that anyone was happy with just having what everyone else had, no matter how comfortable it actually was (it evolved - for the better, for almost a century). Unemployment numbers hit ridiculously high proportions and never went back down (like in the poor centers of Euro cities now, 80-90% unemployment in areas the size of towns), and ever more of the famed Roman armies were dedicated purely to keeping order in cities. Enemies, ideological ones and physical ones, which had no hope whatsoever of surviving a single confrontation with a single centuria (the unit a centurion commanded) became able to do large amounts of damage due to help from dissatisfied locals, and the situation just systematically kept getting worse.
So realistically this is just another indication that the middle ages will come back. Expect atheism, or realism in general, to lose a lot of it's appeal, because it's only message to 99% of the population will be what it was just before the dark ages :
The only useful thing you could realistically do for others is to die, right now.
I re-read it, to see if the metaphor has been stretched a little too far. Nope. You seem to have drawn your Historical lessons correctly, and kept the narrative to the point (Chilling read though!). However, begs a few questions:
1. Are we doomed, as a species with sentience and recall, to repeat the same historical mistakes over and over again?
2. This is the only "flaw" that I could find, really: While organised religion has definitely been a stranglehold over humans during the European dark ages, right now, in many parts of the World, it is not Atheism, but fundamentalism that is more and more prevalent (N.B: Lest people be mistaken, I am not talking about Islam only, or singling it out here). So, that one fell slightly off the mark for me.
3. We are also moving towards a post-peak, energy-scarce, capital-scarce, World scenario, so perhaps, these trends might themselves reverse, or die-out before reaching the kind of critical mass it reached during the Roman collapse?
But, in general, yours' is a very lateral observation, radically different from the "celebrate all things technology" article linked. Enjoyed reading it, although its suggested implications left a very bad after taste in the mouth.
