Paul Barsch posted some thoughts on MIT's practice of making MBA course syllabi, class notes, and recommended reading lists available for free on-line. While some may see this as "giving away the milk for free," if that metaphor makes sense, Barsch rightly points out that the value of attending classes at a prestigious university resides less in the class lecture notes than it does in the interactions one has with faculty and students.
Looked at another way, when one pays for such an education, one is in effect buying access to alumni and other networks from which one would otherwise be excluded. As the old adage goes, "It's not what you know, it's who you know." If you want to get to know the "who," you've got to be where they are, and there's usually an entrance fee. As for the "what," that can usually be acquired for free from the public library. (If you don't believe me, go watch Good Will Hunting again.)
This discussion of granting open access to intellectual property, which is what lecture notes, etc., in effect are, reminded me of an essay by John Perry Barlow in Wired that I read way back in 2000. Aside from being a founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, Barlow was also a lyricist for the Grateful Dead. His association with that entity demonstrated to him the power of allowing for the free distribution of content, especially when the "product" you are ultimately selling is as intangible as "insight," "experience," or "creativity" (or in the case of the Ivy League, "connections"). In his words, "For ideas, fame is fortune. And nothing makes you famous faster than an audience willing to distribute your work for free."
An interesting take on Good Will Hunting, then: Matt Damon does not care about the "who" in the end, but only about the "what." And the girl, of course. Minnie Driver! Who wouldn't?
I think I went to the wrong college.