"You can't just pull some crap out. The learning is very interactive involving both instructor and student."

IF the online teacher constructs good assignments and offers good material, yes. But the teaching doesn't stop at putting up the website.

"IMHO, this is a far more effective approach to learning than sitting in a classroom while someone drones on for 50 minutes and then tells you to read chapter 6."

You are describing bad teaching. I have seldom taken a class, in HS or college, that meets this description. I have almost never taught a class that meets this description. You seem to be assuming this is common. I doubt it. I'm sure it's less rare than I'd like, but common? Yes, given the descriptions you wrote, online learning is better. Given the descriptions you wrote. But those are not the only possibilities for either context. I would still argue that most people are going to do better with a good F2F teacher than with a good online teacher. Online education requires a whole different way of thinking. I'm glad it works well for you.

And for the record, I have no problem with online learning as an adjunct even to public school work (probably best at higher levels, though).

"My program is incredibly challenging and rewarding. It has exceeded my expectations in every regard."

Excellent. There is a program/company called Ombudsman. Reports are that it is very good and students who do it actually learn. Btw, this is used by kids of all levels--kids who don't "do school" well, kids who are bored because the work in school isn't challenging, kids whose learning styles aren't well-met by the school...

"It's rather unfair to say that online classes aren't teaching individuals."

Yes, it is. Did someone say that?

"I think that a lot depends on the individual attending online classes."

And that's equally true of taking classes in a brick-and-mortar setting. The difference is that it's really hard for the teacher to adjust in an online context. I still prefer face-to-face, as a learner and as a teacher. I can do online (as a learner and as a teacher), but like Bartleby, I prefer not to. YMMV, of course. (And good online teaching can be invaluable, as Lisa points out. But some of it is garbage, and some schools have created huge cash cows with little value. Yes, that's true of physical learning as well, but I think F2F learning is still a more proven model.)

"The online method is ok for classes with alot of reading and subjegating and "fuzzy" subjects, but for harder maths and such, it wasnt good for me.."

And for a lot of people, it wouldn't be good for them in any subject. I think I'd find math easier online, not that I've tried it. If I'm going to have a discussion-based class, I want F2F.

But I completely agree with this: "I would be wary of any school that offers totally all online degrees. "

"The high schoolers taking online should have a higher evaluation of performance than just letting the student go with no oversite."

This is why Ombudsman is good (by the reports I've read): there are teachers on-site. The kid goes to a location, works and engages, has the support of and is monitored by physically present teachers.