MasterClass Isn’t Really About Mastery (2020)(every.to)
every.to
MasterClass Isn’t Really About Mastery (2020)
https://every.to/napkin-math/why-masterclass-isnt-really-about-610214
58 comments
Except a "master class" is usually only given to students that are already well into the introductory-- and often advanced-- stages of learning a craft. And that's not even getting into the structure of how such courses usually function & engage with the students.
People don't have to want to be "masters" in order to be interested in this sort of content, but calling them "master classes" rather waters down the definition quite a bit when someone with an interest but no experience in cinematography now goes around saying with smug pride, "I took a master class with Martin Scorsese".
Language changes and the meaning of words & phrases change, sure. But I guess what I don't like is the deliberate manipulation of language to co-opt it for marketing & profiting contrary to what the current use of the language actually means.
People don't have to want to be "masters" in order to be interested in this sort of content, but calling them "master classes" rather waters down the definition quite a bit when someone with an interest but no experience in cinematography now goes around saying with smug pride, "I took a master class with Martin Scorsese".
Language changes and the meaning of words & phrases change, sure. But I guess what I don't like is the deliberate manipulation of language to co-opt it for marketing & profiting contrary to what the current use of the language actually means.
People also pay a lot of money just to have something to talk about. Saying "I started taking this course from {famous_person}" is a conversation starter.
I disagree - I think many people are in fact interested in mastery, but they’re unwilling to commit to mastering a given pursuit because it’s either not their true calling (as is the case with most jobs for most people), because they believe it’s not worth it (even if it might be), or because of external factors like money.
Our society often discourages pursuits that aren’t correlated with income. Practically, how much time can I truly spend on a craft if I need to make a living too? Some people can make what are essentially two full time jobs work, but most people have other needs that fall higher in the hierarchy that don’t allow that sort of dedication.
Or maybe growing up their parents discouraged them from committing to, say, the arts, precisely because of their concern for the uncertain economic future associated with that lifestyle.
I think people who manage to find a job that provides a sense of mastery and pays well are seriously lucky.
Our society often discourages pursuits that aren’t correlated with income. Practically, how much time can I truly spend on a craft if I need to make a living too? Some people can make what are essentially two full time jobs work, but most people have other needs that fall higher in the hierarchy that don’t allow that sort of dedication.
Or maybe growing up their parents discouraged them from committing to, say, the arts, precisely because of their concern for the uncertain economic future associated with that lifestyle.
I think people who manage to find a job that provides a sense of mastery and pays well are seriously lucky.
I think that’s a bit harsh of a description of duolingo. It definitely undersells the amount of work involved, but it absolutely does sell language learning. I’ve personally used it to that effect multiple times.
>Have you wondered that Maybe people aren't really interested in mastery.
Yes, they have. That's what their whole post is about.
Yes, they have. That's what their whole post is about.
I wouldn't expect it to be. A "master class" is a class taught by a master, not a class intended to make you a master.
A master class is supposed to involve personal interaction with the the master, not a videotaped lecture. So I would expect even less from it than from a proper master class.
Master classes can bring very advanced students up a notch, though it's not really intended to make them masters themselves all at a go. That's something you have to earn on your own. But master classes are often taught to the most advanced students to bring their performances to level where they're prepared to strike out on their own and truly master their craft.
A master class is supposed to involve personal interaction with the the master, not a videotaped lecture. So I would expect even less from it than from a proper master class.
Master classes can bring very advanced students up a notch, though it's not really intended to make them masters themselves all at a go. That's something you have to earn on your own. But master classes are often taught to the most advanced students to bring their performances to level where they're prepared to strike out on their own and truly master their craft.
And by "up a notch" I think you mean in nuances that are not as expanded upon in the standard course.
That's the value of the masterclass. It's like asking a knowledgeable friend for advice. That won't turn you into a sage on the topic, but you'll come out all the better for it.
That's the value of the masterclass. It's like asking a knowledgeable friend for advice. That won't turn you into a sage on the topic, but you'll come out all the better for it.
>> The truth is that universities sell all of these things, bundled together. And that’s a big reason they’ve been able to raise prices to astronomical levels over the past several decades — it’s really hard to disrupt all of those things at once.
No, it's because no matter what the cost of school is, universities know their "customers" will just take out a loan to match whatever the price is. And one way to "disrupt" this is to make public universities free for in state students, similar to what California used to do with the UC system.
It was difficult to read the rest of the article given that it started on this false premise.
More specifically, this article should really define what MasterClass is right at the beginning. Because given the picture at the top, I thought it was referring to the generic masterclass [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_class
No, it's because no matter what the cost of school is, universities know their "customers" will just take out a loan to match whatever the price is. And one way to "disrupt" this is to make public universities free for in state students, similar to what California used to do with the UC system.
It was difficult to read the rest of the article given that it started on this false premise.
More specifically, this article should really define what MasterClass is right at the beginning. Because given the picture at the top, I thought it was referring to the generic masterclass [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_class
> No, it's because no matter what the cost of school is, universities know their "customers" will just take out a loan to match whatever the price is. And one way to "disrupt" this is to make public universities free for in state students
It's not just the ability to borrow that's driving this, but the perception that you must absolutely have the product (college degree) - so you don't feel like you have a choice not to borrow to pay the exorbitant fee.
University is hard to "disrupt" but the fact that the cost comes out of your pocket, student debt and all, is one motivating factor for others to try.
If you entrench the university as something that's "free" (meaning, you still pay the exorbitant fee, just in the form of taxes) then you've basically established a monopoly because nothing can compete with something that's "free"
My take on the university is simple - the university originally existed because you needed a single physical location for books and smart people. Access to people and information was finite and location really mattered.
This is the opposite of the world we live in now - ability to access people and knowledge today is only hurt by the physical colocation aspect. So the university, which is still operating under the "books and smart people are scarce so you need to pay us to be near them" principle just no longer makes sense as the default way to educate the masses.
It's not just the ability to borrow that's driving this, but the perception that you must absolutely have the product (college degree) - so you don't feel like you have a choice not to borrow to pay the exorbitant fee.
University is hard to "disrupt" but the fact that the cost comes out of your pocket, student debt and all, is one motivating factor for others to try.
If you entrench the university as something that's "free" (meaning, you still pay the exorbitant fee, just in the form of taxes) then you've basically established a monopoly because nothing can compete with something that's "free"
My take on the university is simple - the university originally existed because you needed a single physical location for books and smart people. Access to people and information was finite and location really mattered.
This is the opposite of the world we live in now - ability to access people and knowledge today is only hurt by the physical colocation aspect. So the university, which is still operating under the "books and smart people are scarce so you need to pay us to be near them" principle just no longer makes sense as the default way to educate the masses.
>> My take on the university is simple - the university originally existed because you needed a single physical location for books and smart people. Access to people and information was finite and location really mattered. This is the opposite of the world we live in now - ability to access people and knowledge today is only hurt by the physical colocation aspect. So the university, which is still operating under the "books and smart people are scarce so you need to pay us to be near them" principle just no longer makes sense as the default way to educate the masses.
That doesn't make sense. Maybe for some fields, but certainly all the fields that actually require a lab to work in still benefit from the physical space a university provides.
I'm also not convinced that remote work/meetings == in person collaboration between colleagues.
That doesn't make sense. Maybe for some fields, but certainly all the fields that actually require a lab to work in still benefit from the physical space a university provides.
I'm also not convinced that remote work/meetings == in person collaboration between colleagues.
> Maybe for some fields, but certainly all the fields that actually require a lab to work in still benefit from the physical space a university provides.
Sure. But it doesn't have to be black and white. A degree costs the.same currently regardless of whether you are in a. Lab-heaby major or one where you mainly sit in a 200+ lecture hall passively listening. Either way you rack up tens lt hundreds of thousands of debt. Wouldn't it be at least nice to have am option to learn the same material in an acredited way while taking advantage of modern technology to drive costs majorly down.
Then for majors with labs etc maybe you do show up somewhere to work on it. You maybe even pay more for lab access since the cost of providing one is higher. I bet you still come out way ahead compared to today.
Bottom line if someone wants the classic education experience, sure. But that financial commitment shouldn't be everyone's default
Sure. But it doesn't have to be black and white. A degree costs the.same currently regardless of whether you are in a. Lab-heaby major or one where you mainly sit in a 200+ lecture hall passively listening. Either way you rack up tens lt hundreds of thousands of debt. Wouldn't it be at least nice to have am option to learn the same material in an acredited way while taking advantage of modern technology to drive costs majorly down.
Then for majors with labs etc maybe you do show up somewhere to work on it. You maybe even pay more for lab access since the cost of providing one is higher. I bet you still come out way ahead compared to today.
Bottom line if someone wants the classic education experience, sure. But that financial commitment shouldn't be everyone's default
If you know of a place where there are a lot of books and you can hang out with smart people, please tell me where it is, it sounds wonderful.
University degrees, in practice, aren't about learning or education. Depending on the person and the university, they are about accreditation (you have more doors open with a bachelor's than you would otherwise, depending on the degree) or they are about connections. Either one can be worth a loan.
But I'm not so sure that making them free accomplishes either one. It's possible that doing so would only push the problem to the master's programs as organizations and candidates look for differentiation.
But I'm not so sure that making them free accomplishes either one. It's possible that doing so would only push the problem to the master's programs as organizations and candidates look for differentiation.
They are about learning and education though. How could they possibly not be. The other things like connections, socialising, getting drunk are just extra bonuses. This idea that universities don't provide any value to society and that they should be replaced by poorly structured YT videos with tons of mistakes in them has to go. Has no basis whatsoever.
This comment is very caricatural. I got multiple university degrees from my country where it's almost free and I learned a lot during the bachelor ones. Master not so much by that nice to have too.
> More specifically, this article should really define what MasterClass is right at the beginning. Because given the picture at the top, I thought it was referring to the generic masterclass
It does, MasterClass is capitalised in the title showing that its a proper noun and the by-line is
> And other lessons from a 9-figure edtech startup
Not sure how the author could define MasterClass more “at the beginning” than in the title and by-line.
It does, MasterClass is capitalised in the title showing that its a proper noun and the by-line is
> And other lessons from a 9-figure edtech startup
Not sure how the author could define MasterClass more “at the beginning” than in the title and by-line.
> Not sure how the author could define MasterClass more “at the beginning” than in the title and by-line.
They do define properly, just after an unrelated blurb about public universities: "MasterClass is an online education portal"
> It does, MasterClass is capitalised in the title showing that its a proper noun and the by-line is
That's fair, although it wasn't capitalized on hackernews
They do define properly, just after an unrelated blurb about public universities: "MasterClass is an online education portal"
> It does, MasterClass is capitalised in the title showing that its a proper noun and the by-line is
That's fair, although it wasn't capitalized on hackernews
How does making the school free solve that specific problem? Wouldn’t the taxpayers foot the bill for whatever the price is? At least with loans there is some consumer price sensitivity, even if it’s lowered via use of loans.
You want the person who is better able to negotiate to negotiate price and product. For what groceries or car you buy you yourself is better than the state. However for education and healthcare the state has proven to be a better negotiator than the people.
> Wouldn’t the taxpayers foot the bill for whatever the price is?
Certainly doesn’t work that way in germany where college is free. But then again, the US have an odd relationship with tax funding, to say the least.
Certainly doesn’t work that way in germany where college is free. But then again, the US have an odd relationship with tax funding, to say the least.
Taxpayers footing the bills for things are more rational and calculating than either 17 year olds or the parents of same who “just want the best” for their kids. (That’s not to say that taxpayers are particularly great at making trade offs; I just think the 17 year olds and their parents are especially terrible at it.)
Presumably, the state has more leverage to negotiate/cap prices than the individual student.
Yes it absolutely would. A better approach would be to test the creditworthiness of the educational program against the earning power of its graduates. That would go a long way towards solving literally every issue relating to student debt and tuition costs.
Presumably any proposal for completely or largely government-funded schools would contain some price controls.
> Wouldn’t the taxpayers foot the bill for whatever the price is?
No, that's not how state budgets work. It's the other way around. Universities will get whatever the state appropriates to them and then have an obligation to take all comers.
No, that's not how state budgets work. It's the other way around. Universities will get whatever the state appropriates to them and then have an obligation to take all comers.
> Universities will get whatever the state appropriates to them and then have an obligation to take all comers.
Would that be like current pre-university public schools then? Shudder!
Would that be like current pre-university public schools then? Shudder!
>> Universities will get whatever the state appropriates to them and then have an obligation to take all comers.
> Would that be like current pre-university public schools then? Shudder!
Why would that be the case? IE, what are the root causes of problems in public K12 education and why would changing the funding mechanism of universities cause those problems to propagate?
Many states have already done this with Community College systems and AFAICT the results have been mostly positive.
So, I imagine it would be exactly like current public universities (in CA quite good). It's not like changing the funding mechanism completely wipes out the faculty or curricula.
In practice, the major change would be that getting into certain programs at public universities (traditional 4 year bachelors programs) becomes more difficult. The university system takes all comers in the sense that there's no charge the point of use, not in the sense that they literally admit everyone who applies. And making college admissions more selective might be a good thing anyways.
> Would that be like current pre-university public schools then? Shudder!
Why would that be the case? IE, what are the root causes of problems in public K12 education and why would changing the funding mechanism of universities cause those problems to propagate?
Many states have already done this with Community College systems and AFAICT the results have been mostly positive.
So, I imagine it would be exactly like current public universities (in CA quite good). It's not like changing the funding mechanism completely wipes out the faculty or curricula.
In practice, the major change would be that getting into certain programs at public universities (traditional 4 year bachelors programs) becomes more difficult. The university system takes all comers in the sense that there's no charge the point of use, not in the sense that they literally admit everyone who applies. And making college admissions more selective might be a good thing anyways.
Wow, you really don't understand this at all, do you? You even tell us you thought it was about something else.
I didn't know about MasterClass myself, but I have to admire the marketing genius they've shown here. Of course you can't make much money teaching people a real skill, because that's hard and most people don't want to put in the time.
However, aspiration and status-seeking are things that are much more universal, and they've figured out how to milk those. Good for them.
I didn't know about MasterClass myself, but I have to admire the marketing genius they've shown here. Of course you can't make much money teaching people a real skill, because that's hard and most people don't want to put in the time.
However, aspiration and status-seeking are things that are much more universal, and they've figured out how to milk those. Good for them.
> However, aspiration and status-seeking are things that are much more universal, and they've figured out how to milk those. Good for them.
Sorry, I find this idea distasteful as it is very disrespectful to the "student".
The Masterclass courses are neither cheap nor short. Most of them don't seem to be very good, either. An actual teacher can provide some tailoring and motivation, as well.
Spending the same amount of time and money with a local voice coach instead of with Christina Aguilera's Masterclass (which isn't very good) is going to be far more productive for a singer.
I suspect the rest of the Masterclasses are the same.
Of course, none of this is new. The "Hot Licks" series of guitar videos did this like ... 30 years ago? And similarly, most of the videos are garbage, but a few are amazing (Jimmy Bruno and Emily Remler spring to mind--Emily Remler talking about all the stuff she did while spending an entire year to fix her "broken rhythm" (that any of us mortals would kill to have) was enlightening).
Sorry, I find this idea distasteful as it is very disrespectful to the "student".
The Masterclass courses are neither cheap nor short. Most of them don't seem to be very good, either. An actual teacher can provide some tailoring and motivation, as well.
Spending the same amount of time and money with a local voice coach instead of with Christina Aguilera's Masterclass (which isn't very good) is going to be far more productive for a singer.
I suspect the rest of the Masterclasses are the same.
Of course, none of this is new. The "Hot Licks" series of guitar videos did this like ... 30 years ago? And similarly, most of the videos are garbage, but a few are amazing (Jimmy Bruno and Emily Remler spring to mind--Emily Remler talking about all the stuff she did while spending an entire year to fix her "broken rhythm" (that any of us mortals would kill to have) was enlightening).
That was "admire" as in "admire Frank Abagnale for his cons."
I didn't say they were any good. Christina Aguilera "teaches" a class?
"I'm not a singer, but I play one on MasterClass."
I didn't say they were any good. Christina Aguilera "teaches" a class?
"I'm not a singer, but I play one on MasterClass."
> No, it's because no matter what the cost of school is, universities know their "customers" will just take out a loan to match whatever the price is.
This is key, and price inflation happens when the entity receiving a service is not the entity paying for the service. It makes the customer price-insensitive. Witness healthcare in America.
This is key, and price inflation happens when the entity receiving a service is not the entity paying for the service. It makes the customer price-insensitive. Witness healthcare in America.
Witness housing.
Masterclass is brilliant in that it is flattering to the audience (master learners only), taught by actual masters of the craft (credibility) and positioned in a way that gives the teacher permission to omit the fundamentals (this is master level, not basics).
Many amateur publishers outside of masterclass dot com have stolen this concept because it too gives them permission to not actually teach fundamentals, but give the feeling of learning.
And that's really what you get from masterclass. I've done a lot of courses on there including Deadmau5 and a lot of film stuff. Actual EDM production and actual filmmaking are incredibly technical and cover a LOT. I've gone deep on Ableton and gone deep on film (I'm a trained steadicam op, attended DP courses (and I know BMD cameras backwards), attended colorist courses (I know Resolve backwards) etc. And the actual learning of these crafts is something you will never even approach at masterclass dot com.
But the author is right. It's very inspirational. But there is very little usable knowledge in any 'masterclass' on how to practice the craft. I think it's critical to understand this because the 'feeling' of learning that MC provides is not the same as 'actual' learning. Actual learning is very time consuming which is why one of the prereqs is passion for the subject because of the volume of content one is required to consume.
So I think one negative effect that MC has is that it can give people the illusion of actual learning when it creates the feeling of learning and merely provides inspiration. But I do love MC and I do still use it, so I don't want it to go away and I'm glad it exists.
Many amateur publishers outside of masterclass dot com have stolen this concept because it too gives them permission to not actually teach fundamentals, but give the feeling of learning.
And that's really what you get from masterclass. I've done a lot of courses on there including Deadmau5 and a lot of film stuff. Actual EDM production and actual filmmaking are incredibly technical and cover a LOT. I've gone deep on Ableton and gone deep on film (I'm a trained steadicam op, attended DP courses (and I know BMD cameras backwards), attended colorist courses (I know Resolve backwards) etc. And the actual learning of these crafts is something you will never even approach at masterclass dot com.
But the author is right. It's very inspirational. But there is very little usable knowledge in any 'masterclass' on how to practice the craft. I think it's critical to understand this because the 'feeling' of learning that MC provides is not the same as 'actual' learning. Actual learning is very time consuming which is why one of the prereqs is passion for the subject because of the volume of content one is required to consume.
So I think one negative effect that MC has is that it can give people the illusion of actual learning when it creates the feeling of learning and merely provides inspiration. But I do love MC and I do still use it, so I don't want it to go away and I'm glad it exists.
I'm not sure why this is described as if it's bad or even surprising. Of course their audience is mostly not watching with the earnest expectation that the content of the videos will bestow upon them mastery of the topic. It's educational entertainment, just like any number of great YouTube channels, but with the high production values and famous faces that allow their content to command a high price.
Not sure that everyone realizes this is just pop-science and not proper courses. Their homepage says:
> Whether it be in business and leadership, photography, cooking, writing, acting, music, sports and more, MasterClass delivers a world class online learning experience.
> Whether it be in business and leadership, photography, cooking, writing, acting, music, sports and more, MasterClass delivers a world class online learning experience.
Now that I've looked into their selection more, the descriptions do seem to vary quite a lot and some do sound more like sequential lesson plans.
I feel like Masterclass is a more direct competitor to Netflix than a university. I am a member and love the content, but don't really watch it with the intention of becoming the next Gordon Ramsay or Judd Apatow. Watching celebrities and others who are at the top of their craft give an insight into their creative process is worth it in itself. If I learn something useful then, well, that's a bonus.
Entertainment and inspiration surely play a large part of MasterClass's success. However, I strongly disagree with the bailey in this article's motte-and-bailey -- that the platform isn't really about education.
At the highest echelon of competitive domains, mentorship by world-class performers is very common. Lin-Manuel Miranda was mentored by Stephen Sondheim. Seth Rogen was mentored by Judd Apatow. Steph Curry was mentored by Dell Curry.
The reason that this sort of mentorship is not standard in education isn't because it isn't effective; it's because these world-class creators outnumber interested students a million to one.
An argument could be made that this sort of online MOOC medium doesn't convey any of the educational benefits of direct mentorship, but that would require more concrete research that this article hasn't done.
At the highest echelon of competitive domains, mentorship by world-class performers is very common. Lin-Manuel Miranda was mentored by Stephen Sondheim. Seth Rogen was mentored by Judd Apatow. Steph Curry was mentored by Dell Curry.
The reason that this sort of mentorship is not standard in education isn't because it isn't effective; it's because these world-class creators outnumber interested students a million to one.
An argument could be made that this sort of online MOOC medium doesn't convey any of the educational benefits of direct mentorship, but that would require more concrete research that this article hasn't done.
... Masterclass is a small subset of classes by famous people to give you a bit of personal insight into what they do and how they do it.
Universities are a large set of classes focused on a particular domain of knowledge with subsets of a set of other knowledge domains bolted on that have a use for the student.
Watching Masterclass With Gordon Ramsey will give you a cookbook, and a few cooking tips for the things he prepares.
Watching 11 years of Emeril Live! won't prepare you for working as a chef, but you can probably watch them and summarize some dos and don'ts of cooking.
Attending the French Culinary Institute, taking their classes, and working in their student restaurant will prepare you for a career in the culinary field in some capacity.
Whether starting as a dishwasher and working your way up is better than spending $60K on 2 years of cooking classes is up to the individual.
Universities are a large set of classes focused on a particular domain of knowledge with subsets of a set of other knowledge domains bolted on that have a use for the student.
Watching Masterclass With Gordon Ramsey will give you a cookbook, and a few cooking tips for the things he prepares.
Watching 11 years of Emeril Live! won't prepare you for working as a chef, but you can probably watch them and summarize some dos and don'ts of cooking.
Attending the French Culinary Institute, taking their classes, and working in their student restaurant will prepare you for a career in the culinary field in some capacity.
Whether starting as a dishwasher and working your way up is better than spending $60K on 2 years of cooking classes is up to the individual.
Masterclass is the TED Talk of education, it's really glorified / overproduced video podcast / interview, some nice notes, the subjects themselves rake in a lot of money.
It's interesting fodder, surely it has value. But it's not a 'Master Class'.
It's interesting fodder, surely it has value. But it's not a 'Master Class'.
I think the cooking classes are very good. I don't know what a "Master Class" is per se, but getting Thomas Keller walking me one on one through a bunch of his recipes has to be pretty close! The article is right on, the classes totally inspired me and now I cook every day, without fear.
Masterclass comes off as the coffee table book of online learning: neat to flip through but no actual substance.
I've heard it described as "insight porn"
[deleted]
I was very unhappy with the instruction I received from masterclass. Maybe I'm an idiot but I actually thought it was going to be out of Mastery level and I was disappointed that a lot of the classes really only focused on introductory material. It's annoying because most educational material for any topic is introductory, particularly the kind that you find online. So it can be pretty hard to find Mastery level advice at a high quality level of instruction.
Does anyone expect to be pro by just following a course?
They excpect to receive wisdom and knowledge of a master, not to be a master themselves. MasterClass is really BeginnerClass, but that wouldn't sell.
Yeah so, if OP did not realize the scheme before he bought I feel sorry for him. Way back when I first heard of Masterclass it too k me a minute of seeing the homepage to figure out the scheme. But I'm well versed in startup bs. "Of course a startup would focus on the mass market beginner level material" even if it says master class on the box.
Yeah so, if OP did not realize the scheme before he bought I feel sorry for him. Way back when I first heard of Masterclass it too k me a minute of seeing the homepage to figure out the scheme. But I'm well versed in startup bs. "Of course a startup would focus on the mass market beginner level material" even if it says master class on the box.
> experts don’t actually do it just for the money, but also as a way to give back. ... easy way to share their story and give advice to a lot of people. A one-year subscription priced at $180 is pretty accessible — certainly cheaper than getting advice from them directly.
YouTube? If reach is all that matters then 0 is better than 180.
YouTube? If reach is all that matters then 0 is better than 180.
It's unfortunately a rare case for someone to be both a master at something and a master at teaching. Those are the best people to learn from.
As for MasterClass, most people agree that it's more IntroClass.
As for MasterClass, most people agree that it's more IntroClass.
So, what redeeming quality does 'masterclass' have besides 'made money'?
You know what else makes money? Any charity 'work' a mega celebrity does.
You mean you can make money when you get a mega celebrity to endorse your product for a tiny fee? It's as if you've leveraged celebrity worship to sell a random product and it worked!
You know what else makes money? Any charity 'work' a mega celebrity does.
You mean you can make money when you get a mega celebrity to endorse your product for a tiny fee? It's as if you've leveraged celebrity worship to sell a random product and it worked!
Master class can be hit and miss. I liked the gardening one and dog training one, and the negotiating one. But didnt really like Steph Curry's basketball course, or Steve Martin's comedy writing, they just seemed to lack useful substance.
Maybe the bigger the celeb the less thought/work they put into the course.
Maybe the bigger the celeb the less thought/work they put into the course.
I thought Dan Brown's class was the best writing instruction I've come across. He understands exactly how he does what he does and he knows how to explain it to you.
i like the one about how to go food shopping. (yeah, they have gotten really specific now)
[deleted]
> MasterClass might claim to be selling education, but don’t be fooled: they are selling credibility and inspiration.
I strongly disagree. If you buy a MasterClass, you don't get any more credibility, so they haven't sold any to you. You might be more inspired, but I think that's debatable too.
I'm into game dev, writing, and music, and I hang out in various communities for all of them. Despite being very different domains, they are very similar in many ways:
* People who are successful at them have high prestige in our culture and often wealth. A hit can be experienced by millions, so there's very high visibility to success. Because of this, there are a large number of people clamoring to get in and do it too. There's a huge shiny pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and everyone wants it.
* The process of consuming the created work is very different from creating it. In fact, the process is really fucking hard. A game you spent three hours playing took a year to make. That little sparkle animation you saw once when you got that bonus item took an artist a week to draw. That page you read in five minutes while waiting in line took the author seven drafts and two editors to get in print. And for every one of those pages, another one got cut entirely. That catchy little guitar riff took the artist ten years of practice to find the rare melodic nugget that sounds familiar enough hook you but isn't actually ripped off from another song.
Because the products are so visible and widely consumed, the fact that the process is so different is not well understood. In plain words, people don't realize what they're getting into when they want to be a game developer, writer, or musician. And when they encounter the reality that it's way harder than it seems and that they are signing up for years of making shitty art before they get good enough to produce something of merit, a whole lot of psychological stuff kicks in.
There is a strong cognitive dissonance between the skilled creator they imagine themselves to be and the unskilled one they actually are today. They've hung some of their self esteem on the idea that they are a gamedev or a musician, but when they sit down to actually do that, they are forcibly confronted with the reality of their skill level.
One of the most common reactions to that is avoidance. People will do anything but make progress on their skill if it lets them avoid experiencing their current lack of it. So game developers go off and spend five years "making an engine" instead of making an actual game and shipping it. Writers obsess over the perfect writing routines and rituals. "Oh, I need to use a Montegrappa pen like Hemingway." Musicians buy and sell gear thinking this next guitar or synth will be the one that the music flows out of like water. (I am highly guilty of all of these.)
None of this ever helps them improve their skills and become a creator, but it feels good. It keeps the cognitive dissonance and fear of failure at bay.
Dropping $180 on a MasterClass from your favorite creative person seems like it will improve your skills, but it requires no actual effort on your part. You don't have to do anything. And, because of that, there is no risk of failure, no risk of seeing that you aren't who you imagine yourself to be.
That's what MasterClass sells: avoidance of fear of failure. Balm for the anxiety that we aren't who we aspire to be. They're in the same product category as "signature edition" guitars and distraction-free writing apps.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The reality is that most of us won't ever be successful Hollywood directors or celebrity chefs. The economics just don't work out that way. I'd rather someone entertain an idle fantasy of being creative even if it rarely bears fruit than give up hope on the idea of being creative at all. Surely the only thing sadder than a wannabe musician is a mindless consumer who doesn't want to be anything at all.
And, who knows, it probably does inspire a few. Personally, I'd rather watch a few hours of video from a creative person who has actually made things that impacted the world, then, you know, unboxing videos or Instragram influencers or something.
Maybe the success of MasterClass is a good sign. It says that many of us cherish the idea of mastering a creative art and making things for others.
I strongly disagree. If you buy a MasterClass, you don't get any more credibility, so they haven't sold any to you. You might be more inspired, but I think that's debatable too.
I'm into game dev, writing, and music, and I hang out in various communities for all of them. Despite being very different domains, they are very similar in many ways:
* People who are successful at them have high prestige in our culture and often wealth. A hit can be experienced by millions, so there's very high visibility to success. Because of this, there are a large number of people clamoring to get in and do it too. There's a huge shiny pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and everyone wants it.
* The process of consuming the created work is very different from creating it. In fact, the process is really fucking hard. A game you spent three hours playing took a year to make. That little sparkle animation you saw once when you got that bonus item took an artist a week to draw. That page you read in five minutes while waiting in line took the author seven drafts and two editors to get in print. And for every one of those pages, another one got cut entirely. That catchy little guitar riff took the artist ten years of practice to find the rare melodic nugget that sounds familiar enough hook you but isn't actually ripped off from another song.
Because the products are so visible and widely consumed, the fact that the process is so different is not well understood. In plain words, people don't realize what they're getting into when they want to be a game developer, writer, or musician. And when they encounter the reality that it's way harder than it seems and that they are signing up for years of making shitty art before they get good enough to produce something of merit, a whole lot of psychological stuff kicks in.
There is a strong cognitive dissonance between the skilled creator they imagine themselves to be and the unskilled one they actually are today. They've hung some of their self esteem on the idea that they are a gamedev or a musician, but when they sit down to actually do that, they are forcibly confronted with the reality of their skill level.
One of the most common reactions to that is avoidance. People will do anything but make progress on their skill if it lets them avoid experiencing their current lack of it. So game developers go off and spend five years "making an engine" instead of making an actual game and shipping it. Writers obsess over the perfect writing routines and rituals. "Oh, I need to use a Montegrappa pen like Hemingway." Musicians buy and sell gear thinking this next guitar or synth will be the one that the music flows out of like water. (I am highly guilty of all of these.)
None of this ever helps them improve their skills and become a creator, but it feels good. It keeps the cognitive dissonance and fear of failure at bay.
Dropping $180 on a MasterClass from your favorite creative person seems like it will improve your skills, but it requires no actual effort on your part. You don't have to do anything. And, because of that, there is no risk of failure, no risk of seeing that you aren't who you imagine yourself to be.
That's what MasterClass sells: avoidance of fear of failure. Balm for the anxiety that we aren't who we aspire to be. They're in the same product category as "signature edition" guitars and distraction-free writing apps.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this. The reality is that most of us won't ever be successful Hollywood directors or celebrity chefs. The economics just don't work out that way. I'd rather someone entertain an idle fantasy of being creative even if it rarely bears fruit than give up hope on the idea of being creative at all. Surely the only thing sadder than a wannabe musician is a mindless consumer who doesn't want to be anything at all.
And, who knows, it probably does inspire a few. Personally, I'd rather watch a few hours of video from a creative person who has actually made things that impacted the world, then, you know, unboxing videos or Instragram influencers or something.
Maybe the success of MasterClass is a good sign. It says that many of us cherish the idea of mastering a creative art and making things for others.
It's just fun to watch. I liked the Disney guy's one
Also anything even tangentially involving Gordon Ramsay is immediately at the top of my list
Also anything even tangentially involving Gordon Ramsay is immediately at the top of my list
[deleted]
Only when one realizes the actual effort that needs to be done to achieve Mastery, most people back out. This is crazy, they say. Who has the time to practice 4 hours a day.
Masterclass doesn't sell mastery. DuoLingo doesn't sell language learning. It sells an aspirational hope that this new skill or language is just one course away. And that's comforting to us somehow. We are simple creatures after all.
BTW, I like the word mastery too much that I decided to start a company around it. Primerlabs(https://primerlabs.io). The goal is to create self paced courses that will allow anyone to truly self-learn difficult subject such as physics, mathematics, economics. We are focusing on CS currently but we will get there (hopefully).