I read and can easily believe that conventional schooling and modern higher education didn't develop the way they did because herding people into classrooms and lecture halls actually facilitates optimal learning for the individual. They developed this way because they're the cheapest option for schooling and educating large masses of people. The rationalisations about why herding is supposedly such a great educational setting came after the fact.
Telling me that I can't get as much out of a book as I can get out of a classroom lecture lacks all credibility. Both are presentations, and all that differs is the format. One format inherently contains lots of sensory distraction, social overload that is beside the point of the topic at hand, and is potentially abusive, which social situations are always in danger of being - especially for people deemed 'different'. The other contains none of that. Guess which is more efficient at conveying the point?
Exchanges with fellow learners most assuredly don't have to happen in person, in herd situations, through the spoken word. Writing actually tends to force people to think more about what they're saying than speaking does. In my experience, people will often talk endlessly with little or no point - in all settings. They rarely write endlessly without a point. Video conferences also seem to remind people to stick more closely to the point than in-person settings. Both provide opportunity for feedback.
If I had stuck to conventional ways of learning and studying, I wouldn't have half the qualifications I do, and the qualifications I have attained in traditional education settings were extremely hard-earned in ways that had nothing to do with the actual subject and everything with the environment. The only reason I stuck it out at all was because there was (and is) no workaround available in the discipline, which I am to this day extremely passionate about.
I'm in my late 30s now. I have never stopped studying - but if I had to do it all in classroom settings rather than by distance learning, self-guided study or in various types of online settings, I wouldn't be able to do half of it. I can just about cope with my part-time job without seeming 'too weird', and it is draining beyond belief because it is dull and because it involves more social interaction than I really have the energy for. If I now had to attend classes for everything I study, too... no way. I collapse for hours each day after work as it is.
Yes, learning to interact with people is important. But that doesn't mean that all learning must religiously include socially motivated interaction. I don't get better at anything, including social interaction, when I'm in overload all the time. On the contrary, my BS-meter will ping harder the more exhausted I am, and the filters gradually disappear because, in the end, there's only so much I can and am willing to take. I am different, not a second-class person who must always strive to try harder to meet other people's standards, to keep everybody but me comfortable.
There's also a fatigue that sets in only over time, I find. I haven't become 'more autistic' with time, and I actually know how to act far more faux-NT now than e.g. in my early 20s. All the same, I don't have the same tolerance levels I did then - i.e. I wouldn't be able to withstand the amount of social interaction that's enforced by classroom learning that I did then - at least not without having regular nervous breakdowns.
I doubt traditional classroom instruction will disappear anytime soon, nor should it. But in light of people's differing social - and physical - needs, it really needs to become just one education setting, not the education setting.
As far as employers go, it depends on the individual what they make of non-conventional study and the qualifications attained through it. Most, I suspect, will far more readily understand distance/online education for reasons of time or mobility constraints (if people are restricted by their work or family situation) than for neurological differences. Since I have always had to work to support myself, the question of 'why distance/online study?' has never been interrogated much. On the other hand, I also work extremely far below my highest qualification, and not in any field I am actually trained for, so my qualifications have been largely beside the point for my employers.
(The reason for my employment situation is that I can't tolerate full-time in most conventional settings, and barely part-time, without getting depressed and physically ill because of the utter exhaustion due to social demands and sensory overload. And part-time comes with limited options, most of them not in high-level jobs.)
I would find it understandable if someone who has attained all their qualifications by full-time distance study (without working a job at the same time) were scrutinised a bit more intensely for jobs that require high-level social skills and lots of interaction with others, especially if those others are customers or clients. But then, I doubt that many people who pick distance-study simply out of preference are the same ones who later apply for positions with intense social components.
Where I am, distance education isn't so very unusual, and there are several fully accredited institutions offering it, so it's not unheard of. At the same time, it's far from the most common path to new qualifications. So it's not necessarily the qualification attained through it that employers might question, but the motivation behind choosing distance/online study.
As far as online/distance education goes: I am all for it, especially for adults, and at least as a complementary option for children and teenagers, in all subjects that allow it. (Re 'allow': vocational drama training wouldn't lend itself to distance study, but history does.)
