> why have the past 50 years of technological change had so little impact on schooling?
A variety of fun reasons. First: it _has_ changed over time. I had recorded online lectures, grade books, course registration, etc. 20 years ago. The pandemic has sort of been a punctuated evolution for instructors, and IDK if we have any sense yet of how much will stick in post-pandemic education.
Second: the cost of education is sort of a feature. Biologists and economists use the concept of "signals" -- actions you might take to indicate your fitness as a mate, or as an employee. Getting into a highly selective school is then very valuable, and the return on education relies in part on school selectivity. If thats the case, we shouldn't expect the price to go down much over time at the elite schools; they control access to a valuable commodity that only goes up as population grows. A technology that allows a school to teach 10x the students would be disastrous for signaling.
Third: the cost of education at many (all?) state schools has been subsidized, and over the past 100y has been an a downward ratchet. Every time a recession devastates a state budget, the unis take another budget cut, but only rarely see subsequent increases. Often these cuts come at the same time the uni itself is showing record enrollments. Faced with a loss of funding and strong demand, school presidents take the action economists predict and raise prices. Which means, even as students are sent ever increasing tuition bills, the actual cost to deliver instruction is not so high, and in many cases going down. And since the return is so high on education, student take the offer they are given.
Fourth: the opportunity cost of faculty delivered education is high. You want a Nobel laureate to teach you intro level physics? Well, every course they pick up is a grant they aren't applying for. Better make it worth the department's time -- every research dollar funds more grad students and PhDs on those important "similar schools" metrics.