This paper summarizes my final opinions concerning the distance learning experience provided by this class. Although this class started out with a very excited group of people, at least on the Ann Arbor side, I think most of us came away somewhat disappointed for a variety of reasons. First, while I can see the benefit of this type of classroom in many circumstances, this was not one in which there was much of a reason for combining two groups, except to experiment with the technology of distance learning over a long distance. I would have gotten more out of the course if it offered content or experiences which were not otherwise available, such as the one session on talk radio. Otherwise, the novelty of distance communication wears off fast and mostly felt like a hindrance to real discussions. The guest speakers at Berkeley would not have been available to the Ann Arbor group without this electronic connection and the potential for a course arranged around guest lecturers who would not otherwise be available would be great. There was not enough of this and reading the description of the previous class lead me to believe there would be. Second, the interests and academic levels of the Berkeley group and the Ann Arbor group were mismatched. I would again have gotten more out of the class if we held discussions with others in our field (library and information science) or at the graduate level in related fields. I could see the Berkeley students' eyes glaze over when library issues were discussed, just as we quickly tired of the OJ discussions which appear to be consuming California. In my opinion, the best discussion we had was when the Berkeley class was on vacation and we could forget about the distance aspect. (The day Howard participated via phone.) Third, the content of the course was not focused enough. There were too many drifty discussions, perhaps due to the diversity of topics covered weekly by the newspaper articles. A focused topic for discussion for at least part of each class might have lead to more interesting input from the participants. As it was, we often did not have the weekly readings until one or two days before each class, and when we did have specific books or articles to read in advance, such as Mythologies, they were not always discussed. While the direction of distance learning seems to be towards increasing the availability of teaching staff and guest experts to wider audiences, it is my feeling that students will only appreciate this if these are experiences they can not find locally, as most people prefer direct contact with instructors. People in more academically remote areas are more likely to appreciate this than those of us living in large University towns. With the exception of the visual aspect provided by the camera, I am not sure what advantage this has over learning over the radio with short wave radio communication, as used to be (and may still be) used in remote parts of Australia, for example. The visual aspect in some ways served as a hindrance for some of the shyer people in the class, although by and large, I felt people adjusted to the presence of the camera fairly rapidly. In summary, while I can see some benefits this type of learning may have to remote students wishing to take a course they can not get to, or the benefit of the occasional guest lecturer in an ordinary classroom, it was merely a frustrating experience as a steady diet. It seems to me most of the benefits are to the teaching staffs of University's plagued by cost cutting, and not to the students they serve.