Rethinking the Price of Learning

Student Experience vs Learner Experience

Last week on LinkedIn Paxton Riter reflected on HolonIQ’s latest report and highlighted a pivotal moment:

“Online learning is outpacing on-campus enrolment for the first time in the US—marking a fundamental shift in higher ed. As learners increasingly see education as ROI-driven, not location-driven, universities are embedding micro-credentials and short-form content into degree pathways. But 83% of online programs still cost the same—or more—than in-person ones. Institutions must now rethink pricing, digital infrastructure, and global strategy to compete in this new era.”

It started me reflecting on some of the debates I was involved in well before COVID reshaped higher education.

When I was at Deakin University, pricing online degrees was already on the table. Deakin has a long history of online students. Even before the pandemic, more than 30% of their students never set foot on campus. We were working in an environment that had three distinct cohorts: domestic on-campus students, domestic online students, and international students, almost all of whom came to Australia and studied face-to-face. International enrolment was very much about a seat in a lecture theatre.

Then we added a fourth cohort. Partnering with FutureLearn, we were the first university to place full degrees onto an open platform (FutureLearn), so that literally anyone anywhere could study and graduate from Deakin. That meant we now had international online students.

This raised new questions. International students on campus pay higher fees, but if they study online from their own country, should the price be the same?

At Deakin we made the decision to set a flat rate. Wherever you were in the world, the degree was priced at the domestic level. It was a conscious step toward equity, but it also forced us to think more deeply about what are students actually paying for?

This is where I started separating the idea of student experience from learner experience.

If you come on campus, you access a package that includes libraries, labs, student clubs, events, counselling, and even the gym. Those elements shape the student experience. But if you are logging in from home, you are engaging with the learning experience: the teaching, the curriculum, the assessment, and the support to succeed academically.

Of course, some services now blur the line. Digital libraries are just as powerful as physical ones. Virtual counselling is commonplace. Even group activities can be simulated or supported with digital tools. Yet some parts of the traditional student experience do not translate easily. You cannot replicate living in a college town online. You cannot fully mirror the social rites of passage.

I remember visiting Penn State University a few years ago and discussing these cultural differences. In Australia, students are more likely to live at home or in shared rentals, while in the US the dormitory and fraternity culture is a huge part of the undergraduate journey. However one colleague mused, perhaps students only need one year of that rite of passage, not three or four. It struck me as an interesting thought: maybe not every student wants or needs the full “student experience” for the full length of their degree.

Which brings me back to Paxton’s challenge: rethinking pricing, digital infrastructure, and global strategy.

If online learning is outpacing campus enrolments, then it is time to rethink what we are really offering. Do online learners want us to replicate the campus experience virtually? Or do they simply want a high quality learning experience that is efficient, affordable, and focused on their goals?

This opens up new models. We could design a baseline online learning experience, curriculum, academic support, digital library, priced more accessibly. Then offer additional services as opt-ins for additional fee. Some learners might choose virtual networking, wellbeing support, or even digital fitness programs. Others will simply want to get on with the learning.

Micro-credentials and short-form courses already point in this direction. They offer a faster path to skills and recognition without the extras. They are not about replicating the university campus. They are about recognition of learning achieved.

This is not about stripping away value. It is about recognising that the value of a degree or credential is not uniform for all learners. Some want the full student experience. Others want only the learning experience. If we continue to price online degrees as if every student is accessing every service, we risk locking people out and ignoring the reality that motivations and needs have shifted.

Universities have an opportunity here. They can rebundle their offerings, rethink their pricing models, and align their global strategies with the different types of learners now enrolling. But that requires asking hard questions. Not just “what can we deliver online?” but “what do learners actually want from us when they are not on campus?”

Maybe it is time we stop trying to replicate the on campus experience online and start designing learning for what it is - learning.

Next week I’ll be at the Eleventh Pan-Commonwealth Forum (PCF11) in Botswana, hosted by the Commonwealth of Learning and Botswana Open University. I’m looking forward to hearing and sharing international perspectives on how open, online and flexible learning can widen access, bridge the digital divide, and support communities around the world.