I used to take a lot of courses on cousera and EdX. I still take some here and there, but not as many as before. Some of the courses are amazing and unbelievably rewarding, like Daphne Koller's Probabilistic Graphical Models, Robert Sedgewick's Analytical Combinatorics, and Gerald Sussman's course on system optimizations. I'm very grateful for such learning opportunities. Unfortunately over time, I also found that these courses had diminishing returns for the following reasons:
- Due to the nature of MOOC, the assignments are largely either multiple-choice questions or programming assignments that merely asked students to fill in some blanks in some functions (there are a few exceptions of course). What a descent US university does really well is challenging students with tough yet insightful and inspiring assignments. That's how students learn deeply and retain the knowledge, at least for me. Merely listening to lectures and ticking off a few ABCDs hardly helps real learning.
- Lack of feedback. A university course assigns TAs, gives tutorials and office hours, grades assignments with detailed feedbacks, and it is so much easier to form study groups and have high bandwidth discussions. MOOCs try their best to offer such help, but they don't work as well or at least not as conveniently.
- Many courses are watered down. For instance, Andrew Ng's ML course on Coursera is far less rigorous than that (229? I forgot) offered in Stanford? The course is great for students to gain some intuition, but I'm not sure if it's good enough for one to build solid ML foundations.
I completely agree that trying to get an education/certification model with no feedback and simple, robotic questions is completely useless.
What's even worse is that almost none of the MOOCs used the strengths from online classes. There are other ways to learn than a hour-long video of a person talking to a webcam.
It's funny how a big part of Andrew Ng's classes is waiting for him to write text with mouse as if he were using the world's worst whiteboard; he could have prepared properly-drawn figures in advance.
> It's funny how a big part of Andrew Ng's classes is waiting for him to write text with mouse as if he were using the world's worst whiteboard; he could have prepared properly-drawn figures in advance.
My personal experience actually showed otherwise. It was more effective for me to learn if instructors write on a whiteboard to gradually develop what they teach. I guess that's because when an instructors writes a whiteboards, students will know exactly what she focuses on all the time, and the writing speed matches the speed of understanding. In contrast, a professor in my university was a big shot on operating systems. He used well prepared slides and he talked fluently, yet I got lost in almost every class.
Udacity had a great Python course back in the day (Programming 101, for Python 2.7)
It had vidoes and then a REPL would drop down and you would continue writing your program, test it against test cases and then a new video would go on for a few minutes explaining the theory for the next step.
I can see why not many try and do this. It obviously took a lot of work, both technically and pedagogically to set up the course and problems.
How would you rate the prerequisites of each course and level of material covered? I've never taken Andrew Ng's ML class, but the impression I get online is that it's great but it's always hard to tell from these positive reviews if the course is just an introductory exploration or something more in-depth.
In my experience, there’s a vast difference between “education” aimed at the individual and what is delivered in accredited academic courses. The commercial aspect / tailoring to get people to buy and stick with it / no doubt is a factor.
Coursera got enshittified like crazy. The first couple of years had legit college courses on it. Then it became all about micro degrees and courses with twenty minute lectures.
There's still some really good stuff out there. I just finished the General Chemistry courses on EdX and they're really good (with a very quiet discussion forum that's still visited by MIT staff). The Finance MicroMasters was also excellent and had active TAs on most courses. Exercises on all these courses were generally very high quality.
Another great online course that I recently took is this one on parallel computing [1]. It's not on Coursera/EdX but uses a custom platform, and I would say it goes beyond "fill in the blanks", the assignments are really challenging and have a lot of depth.
Compared to 5-10 years ago the trend is unfortunately definitely downwards though. A lot of great courses are archived and far fewer are being added than there were in the past.
I forgot the name. It may be called system engineering or something like that. The focus of the course was on parallelization. The instructors spent great deal time on work stealing queues and parallel divide and conquer.
I don't really like how any of the MOOCs run, and I think my issue is that they are not run like universities, they are run like job training centers. They all have the Same courses and the same degrees. Other than a few actual schools like Georgia Tech with OMSCS which actually seems to be trying to innovate to give degrees online at a fraction of the on-campus cost, they also don't seem to be trying to actually give degrees.
A successful MOOC in my mind isn't one that will have some credits for an online certification for programming or nursing that can transfer to a Real school. A successful MOOC is one where I can take a course on Ulysses or Semantics or Mathematics or Plato or whatever just like I could in a real undergrad, but without the same financial and time constraints. I want to be able to spend $5000 taking classes that I find interesting, and accidentally have an English degree Or spend $5000 and really focus and get my degree in X.
I worked in this field - I've met Anant, John Katzman, and Bonnie Ferri. The MOOCs (and any well-run university, probably the minority) have excellent data on what classes students want to take.
Well over 90% of the searches on their site are for tech-related topics. And most of the remainder are probably for business.
You can fantasize about a USA where people want to read Plato and accidentally get English degrees. I also think that would be great. In our current reality, only the trust-fund kids, who already know they never need to work, will want to pay for that. (I mean, their dad or grandpa is the one paying.)
A large part of the issue, as I see it, is that the university format is just a very poor way for people to learn information. If people want to learn a tech skill and don't care about credentials, they invariably find a lot of other ways far superior to university courses. The closest I've seen to university style courses that people actually find useful is Udemy. Very few people seem to get much use from EdX or Coursera classes, far fewer still think it's a good idea to take classes at their local university.
Same with Plato. You can read Plato on your own, you can listen to many more hours of free lectures on Plato, usually from better quality speakers, than you'd ever get at a university, you can join groups of people who want to discuss Plato's philosophy. These people will actually be individuals interested in the topic, not bored university classmates who spend half the time talking about other things because of their disinterest. This is all for free.
Even discounting the cost, university education trails far behind other forms of learning. Once the cost is factored in, the only appeal ends up being the credentials and the four year summer camp environment.
That's why when I see MOOCs brought up these days in the wild, it's usually from people who are taking them for credentials. Once credentials are taken away, MOOCs and universities just don't have a ton to offer for a motivated learner. It would be good if credentials and education were decoupled (for instance, like with the CFA), but there doesn't appear to be much of a push for that.
The other point, as made in the "EdTech doesn't scale" post the other day, is that Edutainment is one of the only really scalable ways to do EdTech profitably, and that favours consumption, not growth or testing (because for learning to be effective, it more or less has to be quite hard). At least, to remember most of the content, not just highlights.
Also, as someone who used MOOC quite often, I take only STEM courses because I'm used to any humanities subjects being of lesser quality. I'd rather read a good book about that topic than take course online.
For STEM things, I think it's usually of the same quality, and I prefer videos, so it's easier choice.
> Other than a few actual schools like Georgia Tech with OMSCS which actually seems to be trying to innovate to give degrees online at a fraction of the on-campus cost, they also don't seem to be trying to actually give degrees.
that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost as it 1) reduces the value of their degrees, and 2) reduces their reputation.
Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%. But they don't want to. Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State), they're selling prestige and future opportunities, and the value of that lies in its _scarcity_.
> that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost
That's one big reason for sure.
The other, I suspect (and I'm sure there are more), is that it's also rather difficult to provide the same level of quality of courses to the masses than say select few undergrads.
Some of the best courses I took in my uni (T20) were the upper level electives where it was taught by the professors who cared about the topic, had interesting teaching materials/presentation, readily available support resources (TA's/office hours/department support), and so on.
Also keep in mind - Georgia Tech's program is a master's degree - and these programs don't affront the same level of prestige and opportunities in the same way the other programs do (BS/BA, PhD, MBA, MD, JD).
It's also important to see university departments as groups of people who often will end up working together for decades, and therefore leadership will see internal politics everywhere. What does doubling your student body do to said politics? Better to minimize growth and keep people happy than deal with the risks of what happens when you end up with far more staff.
A lot of similar fun is occurring as the all the student body that isn't trust fund babies really wants to study topics that will pay well, which in many universities, might not even have a lot of political weight, or even their own dean. See all the universities where you can end up taking CS classes in 8 different unrelated departments, but where they really, really don't want to admit that 50%+ of the student body is programming, as building a proper umbrella for this, which then has so many students, takes a lot of power away from incumbents.
> Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State), they're selling prestige and future opportunities.
Obvious follow up: Are there state universities using these techniques to drive down costs and be more flexible?
> that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost as it 1) reduces the value of their degrees, and 2) reduces their reputation.
Huh? Many selective universities already make their educations free for many undergraduates.
The MOOCs charged money because they failed to solicit donations.
> Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%.
This is true.
> Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State)
The thing is, the best state institutions are operated like there are small elite academies within a larger, public body.
It's because the primary purpose of these institutions is cultural filtering. The only reason we have name brand unis is to sort and filter people into a very small (i.e. 1%) cultural/economic elite. The point is for you to go "ooh, stanford" or "ooh harvard" when you meet a partner at a big law firm, VC, or hedge fund.
In order for there to be a 1% there must necessarily be a 99%. The percentages are fixed; they always will be. Acceptance rates (public, reported) tend towards the filtering rate (implicit, hidden) as the college educated in the broader population tends towards 1.
Look at the endowments of these institutions. They are comparable in magnitude to elite hedge funds and VCs.
Of course they do top research and learning as well -- but only because they must. Under the old system, which worked simple, you'd be selected for an Ivy based on your blood relations and receive no education at all (for a recent example of this, Brett Kavanaugh: Supreme Court Justice).
I guess it is an improvement on the old system that these places offer a "world-class education" ** to at least some of their students; and that some of their students are pleased to receive it.
** whatever that means. My degree isn't printed on vellum Ivy league stationary, only the coarse public Ivy stuff (public Ivy: isn't that an interesting turn of phrase?); but I received the finest education of my academic career from a California community college. My classmates were navy veterans, part time auto mechanics, and young single parents.
How do you inexpensively scale the personalized work done by professors and TAs in grading your work, making sure you're not cheating or plagiarizing, and clarifying your misunderstandings when you're not "getting" the educational material? If a firm hires someone with a degree, what they're paying for is knowing that a person actually learned the material, which requires human intervention to do grading and to prevent cheating. That costs a lot of money, because technological innovations don't really make the grading or cheating prevention any cheaper. Education is the prototypical example of an industry affected by Baumol's cost disease.
The cheapest part to scale is the educational material and lectures, but that's always been the case, even before MOOCs. It has been possible for more than a century to go a library for free and get access to more educational material than one person could read in a several lifetimes. What has never been cheap are teachers who care, and I don't think that MOOCs can technologically innovate so much so that they reduce the cost of a teacher that cares.
I do think, however, that what they can leverage is community, having more sociable spaces for interactions related to each course and/or more generally. I understand some already do, but I feel like in the few classes I have tried through EdX they were not utilized well.
I think the only reason this doesn't happen is economics. If someone were to "fix" the education system and start giving out bachelors for less money, the value of bachelors degrees would go down. In part, because more people would have them, but also because schools have systems to prevent abuse such as fraud.
If you just want to take a class, there are plenty of MOOCs that give the lectures, exercises, and tests out for free.
Another reason is that different universities may emphasize different things as part of the curriculum. Lets say a philosophy degree at harvard emphasizes Greek philosophers, but a philosophy degree at UT emphasizes post modern philosophers. Taking a class at one doesn't transfer to another. Mixing classes at different universities simply doesn't work because you weren't educated at the university so why should you get a degree from that university?
The way I see it is that if you just want to get educated the resources are out there, but if you want degree, you gotta go to school.
Obtaining a degree should be a separate optional examination, likely on-site, like other extern examinations.
But receiving lectures and coursework equivalent / comparable to those received by regular students, such that would realistically prepare you to passing the same kind of exam (given adequate study effort from you), would be actually useful. Useful even if you don't take the exam and don't receive credits / papers. Study is not for costly signaling alone.
> my issue is that they are not run like universities, they are run like job training centers
I think part of the tricky thing is that this is what HR/employer/MBA-type cultures increasingly see a degree as. So why not just go right to that?
I don't agree with this perspective, to be clear, but if you look at it from a certain viewpoint it's not too difficult to see why there would be pressure to approach with that tack. You might even go a step further and argue that if these things are failing as the article states, it might say something about the viability of that hyperspecialized perspective on degrees. Or maybe not.
Well I can tell you that the university of Michigan has exactly what you want. And the professors teach the same class in person as well as online (with some modification to fit the format).
If you can take the same degree for $5K instead of $50K, no one will be taking the $50K degree. Most people go to university for the credentials of the university.
Check out the Open University then. It’s the real thing and online. It costs and there are time constraints but they are the experts in remote teaching
The best MOOC Í‘ve attended was Balaji Srivivasan’s Startup Engineering, 10 years ago. Like many, I dropped out in the middle - in my case I wanted to spend more time with my little daughter. I still think it was the right decision, but I probably would not have dropped a presence course.
> and I think my issue is that they are not run like universities, they are run like job training centers.
It is my understanding that that's how most of the universities are now also run.
Granted, I haven't set foot in an university in almost two decades now, so maybe my view is skewed from I what I've read online and based on the not so numerous interactions I've had with people who attend university.
Udacity pivoted from seeking to be a new way of giving university level education to the masses to job training.
I think the market spoke. There are still universities that also offer online degrees, but generally on their own platform, with live streaming - not in own-paced, pre-recorded MOOCs.
I absolutely would. Spending a couple hundred for a class to read through Plato/insert interesting topic here with an expert and a few other interested colleagues is well worth it in my mind. If after a few of those I get a degree to show off I completed this and have some baseline knowledge is worth it. I enjoy school for the most part.
Worked for 2U. It was the most incomprehensibly incompetent place you could imagine. Terrible people with zero real skills all backstabbing each other.
> Terrible people with zero real skills all backstabbing each other.
You know, without you saying another word, I feel like I know them, down to being able to describe their clothes, haircuts and of course powerpoint decks. It's like some bad business school archetype that just re-appears by itself in nature.
Can anybody who has enrolled in an online-only degree program comment on the experience?
I retired last year from teaching full-time at a conventional university. All of my teaching was in-person until the last few years, which were online because of the pandemic. My impression, after I got used to the new format, was that online is fine for small discussion-based seminars but that it is harder to keep students engaged in larger classes, especially students who are new to university study.
I really liked the potential of online at first—it was exciting to lead meaningful academic discussions among students located in several countries—but as time passed I started to wonder about how well it can really work for university education.
I am halfway through an online degree in ICT. We had a Instructional Design course that went over the differences. There is a textbook that has a chapter on it called Trends in Instructional Design but it is pricey. My position is adult learning works better online to reorganize cognitive schemas but children benefit from social learning theory. It is something like 1-5% complete MOOCs, they really need some kind of personal feedback. But generative AI may change this too. Look at Math Academy for example (Skycak has a book about it) (and they don't use gen AI for the tutoring either). https://www.justinmath.com/books/
I've been following classcentral for a few years. They make money from affiliate commissions but as far as I can tell it hasn't stopped them from producing decent quality coverage of the MOOC industry. I like their occasional writeups of new MOOCs coming out though it's been a while since I took one because I'm currently wrapping up a full time masters.
MitX math and science classes are (were?) outstanding. The few I tried from other participating universities were a grade below in quality. Then EdX/MitX just... stopped publishing new content. I learned (re-learned?) math and science from these and Khan; fundamentally changed my life. Too good of a resource to last? At least Khan's still kicking.
2U did no due diligence. A minimum might have been to contact the author of the platform to check on IP issues (or anything else). This never happened. Lots of other things never happened either.
What they bought had little resemblance to what they thought they were buying. They got fleeced by MIT and Harvard. Wasn't the first and won't be the last.
Readit News
- Due to the nature of MOOC, the assignments are largely either multiple-choice questions or programming assignments that merely asked students to fill in some blanks in some functions (there are a few exceptions of course). What a descent US university does really well is challenging students with tough yet insightful and inspiring assignments. That's how students learn deeply and retain the knowledge, at least for me. Merely listening to lectures and ticking off a few ABCDs hardly helps real learning.
- Lack of feedback. A university course assigns TAs, gives tutorials and office hours, grades assignments with detailed feedbacks, and it is so much easier to form study groups and have high bandwidth discussions. MOOCs try their best to offer such help, but they don't work as well or at least not as conveniently.
- Many courses are watered down. For instance, Andrew Ng's ML course on Coursera is far less rigorous than that (229? I forgot) offered in Stanford? The course is great for students to gain some intuition, but I'm not sure if it's good enough for one to build solid ML foundations.
What's even worse is that almost none of the MOOCs used the strengths from online classes. There are other ways to learn than a hour-long video of a person talking to a webcam.
It's funny how a big part of Andrew Ng's classes is waiting for him to write text with mouse as if he were using the world's worst whiteboard; he could have prepared properly-drawn figures in advance.
My personal experience actually showed otherwise. It was more effective for me to learn if instructors write on a whiteboard to gradually develop what they teach. I guess that's because when an instructors writes a whiteboards, students will know exactly what she focuses on all the time, and the writing speed matches the speed of understanding. In contrast, a professor in my university was a big shot on operating systems. He used well prepared slides and he talked fluently, yet I got lost in almost every class.
That being said, one way to achieve this is to play things backward or occlude detail while you get to the final creation.
It had vidoes and then a REPL would drop down and you would continue writing your program, test it against test cases and then a new video would go on for a few minutes explaining the theory for the next step.
I can see why not many try and do this. It obviously took a lot of work, both technically and pedagogically to set up the course and problems.
Then I took a Columbia ML graduate course IRL: it was like being hit by a train.
What grad class did you take?
https://www.cs.columbia.edu/education/ms/machinelearning/
Dead Comment
Another great online course that I recently took is this one on parallel computing [1]. It's not on Coursera/EdX but uses a custom platform, and I would say it goes beyond "fill in the blanks", the assignments are really challenging and have a lot of depth.
Compared to 5-10 years ago the trend is unfortunately definitely downwards though. A lot of great courses are archived and far fewer are being added than there were in the past.
[1] https://ppc.cs.aalto.fi/
A successful MOOC in my mind isn't one that will have some credits for an online certification for programming or nursing that can transfer to a Real school. A successful MOOC is one where I can take a course on Ulysses or Semantics or Mathematics or Plato or whatever just like I could in a real undergrad, but without the same financial and time constraints. I want to be able to spend $5000 taking classes that I find interesting, and accidentally have an English degree Or spend $5000 and really focus and get my degree in X.
Well over 90% of the searches on their site are for tech-related topics. And most of the remainder are probably for business.
You can fantasize about a USA where people want to read Plato and accidentally get English degrees. I also think that would be great. In our current reality, only the trust-fund kids, who already know they never need to work, will want to pay for that. (I mean, their dad or grandpa is the one paying.)
Same with Plato. You can read Plato on your own, you can listen to many more hours of free lectures on Plato, usually from better quality speakers, than you'd ever get at a university, you can join groups of people who want to discuss Plato's philosophy. These people will actually be individuals interested in the topic, not bored university classmates who spend half the time talking about other things because of their disinterest. This is all for free.
Even discounting the cost, university education trails far behind other forms of learning. Once the cost is factored in, the only appeal ends up being the credentials and the four year summer camp environment.
That's why when I see MOOCs brought up these days in the wild, it's usually from people who are taking them for credentials. Once credentials are taken away, MOOCs and universities just don't have a ton to offer for a motivated learner. It would be good if credentials and education were decoupled (for instance, like with the CFA), but there doesn't appear to be much of a push for that.
The other point, as made in the "EdTech doesn't scale" post the other day, is that Edutainment is one of the only really scalable ways to do EdTech profitably, and that favours consumption, not growth or testing (because for learning to be effective, it more or less has to be quite hard). At least, to remember most of the content, not just highlights.
For STEM things, I think it's usually of the same quality, and I prefer videos, so it's easier choice.
that's because selective universities don't _want_ to give degrees through MOOCs at a lower cost as it 1) reduces the value of their degrees, and 2) reduces their reputation.
Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%. But they don't want to. Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State), they're selling prestige and future opportunities, and the value of that lies in its _scarcity_.
That's one big reason for sure.
The other, I suspect (and I'm sure there are more), is that it's also rather difficult to provide the same level of quality of courses to the masses than say select few undergrads.
Some of the best courses I took in my uni (T20) were the upper level electives where it was taught by the professors who cared about the topic, had interesting teaching materials/presentation, readily available support resources (TA's/office hours/department support), and so on.
Also keep in mind - Georgia Tech's program is a master's degree - and these programs don't affront the same level of prestige and opportunities in the same way the other programs do (BS/BA, PhD, MBA, MD, JD).
A lot of similar fun is occurring as the all the student body that isn't trust fund babies really wants to study topics that will pay well, which in many universities, might not even have a lot of political weight, or even their own dean. See all the universities where you can end up taking CS classes in 8 different unrelated departments, but where they really, really don't want to admit that 50%+ of the student body is programming, as building a proper umbrella for this, which then has so many students, takes a lot of power away from incumbents.
Obvious follow up: Are there state universities using these techniques to drive down costs and be more flexible?
Huh? Many selective universities already make their educations free for many undergraduates.
The MOOCs charged money because they failed to solicit donations.
> Top universities could easily increase their student body 2x or 3x, bringing acceptance rate back up to 15%-20%.
This is true.
> Because what they're selling is not just an education (you can get that at (fill in blank) State)
The thing is, the best state institutions are operated like there are small elite academies within a larger, public body.
In order for there to be a 1% there must necessarily be a 99%. The percentages are fixed; they always will be. Acceptance rates (public, reported) tend towards the filtering rate (implicit, hidden) as the college educated in the broader population tends towards 1.
Look at the endowments of these institutions. They are comparable in magnitude to elite hedge funds and VCs.
Of course they do top research and learning as well -- but only because they must. Under the old system, which worked simple, you'd be selected for an Ivy based on your blood relations and receive no education at all (for a recent example of this, Brett Kavanaugh: Supreme Court Justice).
I guess it is an improvement on the old system that these places offer a "world-class education" ** to at least some of their students; and that some of their students are pleased to receive it.
** whatever that means. My degree isn't printed on vellum Ivy league stationary, only the coarse public Ivy stuff (public Ivy: isn't that an interesting turn of phrase?); but I received the finest education of my academic career from a California community college. My classmates were navy veterans, part time auto mechanics, and young single parents.
The cheapest part to scale is the educational material and lectures, but that's always been the case, even before MOOCs. It has been possible for more than a century to go a library for free and get access to more educational material than one person could read in a several lifetimes. What has never been cheap are teachers who care, and I don't think that MOOCs can technologically innovate so much so that they reduce the cost of a teacher that cares.
If you just want to take a class, there are plenty of MOOCs that give the lectures, exercises, and tests out for free.
Another reason is that different universities may emphasize different things as part of the curriculum. Lets say a philosophy degree at harvard emphasizes Greek philosophers, but a philosophy degree at UT emphasizes post modern philosophers. Taking a class at one doesn't transfer to another. Mixing classes at different universities simply doesn't work because you weren't educated at the university so why should you get a degree from that university?
The way I see it is that if you just want to get educated the resources are out there, but if you want degree, you gotta go to school.
But receiving lectures and coursework equivalent / comparable to those received by regular students, such that would realistically prepare you to passing the same kind of exam (given adequate study effort from you), would be actually useful. Useful even if you don't take the exam and don't receive credits / papers. Study is not for costly signaling alone.
I think part of the tricky thing is that this is what HR/employer/MBA-type cultures increasingly see a degree as. So why not just go right to that?
I don't agree with this perspective, to be clear, but if you look at it from a certain viewpoint it's not too difficult to see why there would be pressure to approach with that tack. You might even go a step further and argue that if these things are failing as the article states, it might say something about the viability of that hyperspecialized perspective on degrees. Or maybe not.
It might be the "same", but there will be people that judge them for getting the cheap one.
It is my understanding that that's how most of the universities are now also run.
Granted, I haven't set foot in an university in almost two decades now, so maybe my view is skewed from I what I've read online and based on the not so numerous interactions I've had with people who attend university.
I think the market spoke. There are still universities that also offer online degrees, but generally on their own platform, with live streaming - not in own-paced, pre-recorded MOOCs.
In fact, Harvard and MIT invested $30M each and sold EdX for $800M to 2U: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-06-29-2u-buys-edx-for-800m...
So, likely, Harvard and MIT made some money.
It's 2U who lost the money. It's the public that suffered from the loss of EdX.
<sarcasm>As hedge funds with schools attached, they are doing extremely well.</sarcasm>
You know, without you saying another word, I feel like I know them, down to being able to describe their clothes, haircuts and of course powerpoint decks. It's like some bad business school archetype that just re-appears by itself in nature.
I retired last year from teaching full-time at a conventional university. All of my teaching was in-person until the last few years, which were online because of the pandemic. My impression, after I got used to the new format, was that online is fine for small discussion-based seminars but that it is harder to keep students engaged in larger classes, especially students who are new to university study.
I really liked the potential of online at first—it was exciting to lead meaningful academic discussions among students located in several countries—but as time passed I started to wonder about how well it can really work for university education.
The EdX brand was amazing. It’s sad what it’s become.
I don’t know too much about classcentral but I hope that the blog post was written in the interest of seeing MOOCs thrive.
https://www.youtube.com/@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259/vide...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWnfJ0-xXRE&list=PLyQSN7X0ro...
What they bought had little resemblance to what they thought they were buying. They got fleeced by MIT and Harvard. Wasn't the first and won't be the last.
There's a sucker born every minute