The economics of online education seems very similar to those of TV and software industries: large one time expense on content development, global winner takes most competitions(for courses taught in english), brand names are important.
This may lead to dumbing down of courses(to an extent) to get more users. But sure, they don't want to harm the main business.
I don't mean to imply that schools should be in it for the $$$. I get your point. But costs are an issue. A big issue. And right now student tuitions shoulder a large part of that burden.
Stanford's total enrollment is about 20,000 students. $35,000 per year = $700,000,000.
Offer 16 new online courses which yields 20,000 students per course taking a $99 final exam. $31,680,000. Less than 5% of annual tuition-based revenue. That's a new library without hitting the endowment fund, underwriting existing salaries, funding pension obligations, or adding a new facility dedicated solely to the production of online educational content.
I think Leland and Jane Stanford would be proud to know that the memorial they built to their son is today moving in the direction of educating millions worldwide.
It's okay to "be strong and stay strong and while being of benefit to others."
The problem is providing a questionable education and then selling a meaningless certification to make money.
These classes are also highly vulnerable to cheating and you can be sure that a large number of people will take advantage of this to pump up their resumes.
I think that's why MITx plans to use a third-party for their certification exams. Similiar to testing centers for standardized exams like the LSAT, GMAT, GRE, etc.
20,000 "certification" exams @ $99.00 each is not insignificant. It's just shy of 40 full-time students @ $50,000 per year.
Heats a lot of buildings.