The Triple Failure of 2U, EdX, and Axim(classcentral.com)
classcentral.com
The Triple Failure of 2U, EdX, and Axim
https://www.classcentral.com/report/2u-edx-bankruptcy/
183 comments
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.
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.
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.
Many studies have shown watching things happen over time is much more useful for the human mind than being presented it completed.
That being said, one way to achieve this is to play things backward or occlude detail while you get to the final creation.
That being said, one way to achieve this is to play things backward or occlude detail while you get to the final creation.
students are more engaged with the lesson when the teacher handwrites compared to when teacher uses slides / ready-made material
To be honest, instead of wasting time on writing, the professor could share anecdotes from history, his life, industry, and other aspects i.e. the social aspect of doing science and research. I really find those interesting than mere cut and dry exposition of concepts.
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.
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.
Worthless is greatly exaggerating imho. I learned quite a bit from these courses even though they were far from optimal.
I remember taking Andrew Ng’s (delightful) Coursera ML and believing I knew ML.
Then I took a Columbia ML graduate course IRL: it was like being hit by a train.
Then I took a Columbia ML graduate course IRL: it was like being hit by a train.
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.
229 is an intro class for students with no AI or CS theory experience, and basic multivariable calculus and linear algebra.
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.
To me that is in large part explained by the fact that most MOOCs are introductory, unlike most graduate courses.
229 is a 2xx class for advanced undergraduates and beginning graduate students. It's a first course in machine learning with no AI prereqs.
What grad class did you take?
https://www.cs.columbia.edu/education/ms/machinelearning/
What grad class did you take?
https://www.cs.columbia.edu/education/ms/machinelearning/
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.
soniman(9)
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.
[1] https://ppc.cs.aalto.fi/
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/
Do you remember the name of Sussman's course on system optimizations? Can't seem to find it online
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.
Feels like LLMs could be used to scalably grade more complicated assignments than multiple choice tests.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
decoupling would really make a difference. i should be able to acquire knowledge however i want or am able to, and then pass a standardized process to get the accreditation.
the problem with standardized tests however is that they lead to more schools just teaching for the test and not actually helping the students learn. it's tricky. depending on the subject or field. though i suppose papers and dissertations can be judged on their own merits. but other tests are trickier to do in a way that they can't just be passed by memorizing test knowledge.
the problem with standardized tests however is that they lead to more schools just teaching for the test and not actually helping the students learn. it's tricky. depending on the subject or field. though i suppose papers and dissertations can be judged on their own merits. but other tests are trickier to do in a way that they can't just be passed by memorizing test knowledge.
Honestly, though, removing standardized testing usually just obfuscates the problem. There are many ways to game the system. The ubiquitous college cramming is usually about temporarily learning for the test the night before a big exam.
It's better to work on improving transparent standards for credentials than to have tens of thousands of different standards that no one pays attention to and hoping that they're adequate, despite having no clue if that's actually the case.
It's better to work on improving transparent standards for credentials than to have tens of thousands of different standards that no one pays attention to and hoping that they're adequate, despite having no clue if that's actually the case.
As a related aside, "competency-based education" is a thing, slightly more popular in Europe than in the US.
I don't want to destroy all universities (like Trump or DeSantis do). But it IS true that the higher-education system needs a big revamp, and that the necessary change is unlikely to come from within, because the people (tenured faculty) who currently hold all the power have a strong interest in not rocking the boat.
I don't want to destroy all universities (like Trump or DeSantis do). But it IS true that the higher-education system needs a big revamp, and that the necessary change is unlikely to come from within, because the people (tenured faculty) who currently hold all the power have a strong interest in not rocking the boat.
Most software programmers say that certifications have little to no value, so the decoupling doesn't seem to be working.
I was once excited about Udemy. I bought a lot of courses, most of which I never started.
But the few times I started a Udemy course, every single one was terrible, once I got past the first 20% or so. And contrary to their advertising, they did not allow me to return the course, because I had "completed too much" or something. IIRC I was around the 30-35% mark.
Totally different from Coursera, which can be hit and miss, but best stuff is very good.
Have you had a different experience? Which courses did you complete that were good?
TLDR: Udemy - cheap, and you get what you pay for.
But the few times I started a Udemy course, every single one was terrible, once I got past the first 20% or so. And contrary to their advertising, they did not allow me to return the course, because I had "completed too much" or something. IIRC I was around the 30-35% mark.
Totally different from Coursera, which can be hit and miss, but best stuff is very good.
Have you had a different experience? Which courses did you complete that were good?
TLDR: Udemy - cheap, and you get what you pay for.
There are some people there who are good; but most of the courses there are quite bad. Which ones you tried, if I may ask? I'm curious.
I remember being both Neil Cummings and Max Schwarzmueller courses to be good, but I did them some time ago and when I was never to web development.
I remember being both Neil Cummings and Max Schwarzmueller courses to be good, but I did them some time ago and when I was never to web development.
You mean - on Coursera?
There was a Python course offered by three profs at Rice University that was A+.
Similar for Dan Ariely's Behavioral Economics class - of course, maybe it was all lies (now it turns out), but entertaining nevertheless.
Andrew Ng's course is quite math-heavy (I haven't done it), but it gets rave reviews.
So many Coursera tech/CS courses are offered by profs at elite universities - there's no way they could be the kind of crap that is standard on Udemy.
What Coursera lacks (compared to the university experience) is personal interaction with a real professor, group projects with smart and focused classmates, and personalized feedback.
There was a Python course offered by three profs at Rice University that was A+.
Similar for Dan Ariely's Behavioral Economics class - of course, maybe it was all lies (now it turns out), but entertaining nevertheless.
Andrew Ng's course is quite math-heavy (I haven't done it), but it gets rave reviews.
So many Coursera tech/CS courses are offered by profs at elite universities - there's no way they could be the kind of crap that is standard on Udemy.
What Coursera lacks (compared to the university experience) is personal interaction with a real professor, group projects with smart and focused classmates, and personalized feedback.
Ah, sorry. I meant for Udemy - I've no real experience with Coursera.
I think you are very correct.
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.
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.
Something I noticed is that I watch a lot of edutainment content but I don't really retain any information from that, not even the highlights. I'm wondering whether this is basically wasted time.
Wasting time is okay. Some people watch sports, play video games, go to the pub, work on that old thing in the garage (and just end up watching youtube videos about other people's projects).
I started taking notes, started cutting down on low-quality infotainment/edutainment (for example while I know folks at SciShow work a lot on their content, put a lot of effort into producing scientifically correct stuff, but it's just not deep enough, it's too fast), and in general try to watch/listen to multiple videos that touch the same topics. (Because many complex things require multiple passes to comprehend anyway, and getting different viewpoints, different presentation helps a lot with that.)
I started taking notes, started cutting down on low-quality infotainment/edutainment (for example while I know folks at SciShow work a lot on their content, put a lot of effort into producing scientifically correct stuff, but it's just not deep enough, it's too fast), and in general try to watch/listen to multiple videos that touch the same topics. (Because many complex things require multiple passes to comprehend anyway, and getting different viewpoints, different presentation helps a lot with that.)
The multiple passes statement reminded me of The Unfinished Swan game.
https://youtu.be/X9YaFY8S75M
https://youtu.be/X9YaFY8S75M
If the student only watches the content, and doesn't have the chance to be (1) tested on it, and (2) apply it over time, the learning is quickly lost.
That's my personal experience, and that's also the theory nowadays.
I mean, it's not worse than watching reality TV or sports or something. Maybe better - maybe consuming edutainment will inspire you to follow through and apply it.
That's my personal experience, and that's also the theory nowadays.
I mean, it's not worse than watching reality TV or sports or something. Maybe better - maybe consuming edutainment will inspire you to follow through and apply it.
Is it really the testing that reinforces the learning? or is it the application over time?
It's true that testing benefits learning (Test Effect).
However the question is increasingly whether simply the cognitive load of feedback is the reason for this is coming up.
i.e. does the Testing effect reduce in efficacy when you apply it to every waking hour, every course? does it just benefit when you study one course?
There are clear links that subjects where students have a stake in the result (i.e. it is mandatory for college) lead to higher attendance and final grades, regardless of study method.
Lots of the predominant psychology applies only to motivated students or those in mandatory courses.. so basically, we can't know the state for free willed learning/edutainment.
However the question is increasingly whether simply the cognitive load of feedback is the reason for this is coming up.
i.e. does the Testing effect reduce in efficacy when you apply it to every waking hour, every course? does it just benefit when you study one course?
There are clear links that subjects where students have a stake in the result (i.e. it is mandatory for college) lead to higher attendance and final grades, regardless of study method.
Lots of the predominant psychology applies only to motivated students or those in mandatory courses.. so basically, we can't know the state for free willed learning/edutainment.
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.
For STEM things, I think it's usually of the same quality, and I prefer videos, so it's easier choice.
I get your point. Paid school is problem and people should be free to find their purpose.
Unpaid school is a different problem because it's society subsidizing their hobbies.
A persuite of knowledge is not 'subsidizing their hobbies'.
Its a captialsm valuation nothing more.
What are we as humans if we don't have the resources to educate and learn and be curious?
I really hope the current AI and Robot wave will lead us all to a more 'free' society
Its a captialsm valuation nothing more.
What are we as humans if we don't have the resources to educate and learn and be curious?
I really hope the current AI and Robot wave will lead us all to a more 'free' society
We are free to be curious and to "find ourselves". But why should we expect society to pay for it beyond a certain point? At some point it is indeed "subsidizing hobbies".
As long as things cost something, and a course costs something to create and deliver, the question of valuation in some way is valid. It's not a capitalist issue, it's an allocation of resources issue, which is something universal as long as resources are limited.
Where it works, the free market is great because it transparently shows how people actually value something. That is, it shows how we actually are and what we actually want, not what would be nice in some utopian world.
As long as things cost something, and a course costs something to create and deliver, the question of valuation in some way is valid. It's not a capitalist issue, it's an allocation of resources issue, which is something universal as long as resources are limited.
Where it works, the free market is great because it transparently shows how people actually value something. That is, it shows how we actually are and what we actually want, not what would be nice in some utopian world.
It's interesting how abstract these discussions are. Countries with free – free for the student, at least – tertiary education do exist and you can use them for comparison.
Surely you know that in those countries, education is gatekept in a different,perhaps even worse way. Sure you don't have to pay to get university education in France. But good luck entering a program you want, or reorienting later in life, after highschool. You end up with a lot of people competing for the sought after degrees, and not ever being able to even dream of "learning what you want" if you messed up your bac exam. And the requirements are very strict and inflexible for those,much more than in the US.
The same thing happens in Germany but in an even more vicious way. You are basically triaged before high school and can only manage to switch with tons of bureaucracy and difficulty. It's gotten better but it's still very much 'your path is set and is almost impossible to change after high school' for most people.
The same thing happens in Germany but in an even more vicious way. You are basically triaged before high school and can only manage to switch with tons of bureaucracy and difficulty. It's gotten better but it's still very much 'your path is set and is almost impossible to change after high school' for most people.
Yes they do exist. On the one hand this is great but on the other hand it also also generates waste, both in terms of resources and time.
I went to university in France when it was both free (still basically is) with no selection for entry and the amount of waste was huge for no benefit to anyone... well except for official stats because "I'm not unemployed, I'm a student"...
I went to university in France when it was both free (still basically is) with no selection for entry and the amount of waste was huge for no benefit to anyone... well except for official stats because "I'm not unemployed, I'm a student"...
please elaborate on the waste you saw. i studied in germany and austria and i didn't notice waste. on the contrary, requiring payment would have excluded many of the good students. (entry is limited to qualified students however, so there is some selection. does that make all the difference? i doubt it.)
> on the contrary, requiring payment would have excluded many of the good students
How? Surely people/families in Germany/Austria, some of the richest countries in the world, can afford to pay something towards education costs... And in fact they do through their taxes, which are needed to pay for this "free" university. [obviously poor families can benefit from bursaries so this is not a relevant argument]
The waste is students picking courses just to do something or just because they are vaguely interested in them (and then they get all the benefits afforded to students, including housing subsidies). And then they give up, or they fail, or once they graduate they realise that it gets them exactly 0 job. So huge waste of resources and time and, as mentioned, sometimes a way to hide youth unemployment.
How? Surely people/families in Germany/Austria, some of the richest countries in the world, can afford to pay something towards education costs... And in fact they do through their taxes, which are needed to pay for this "free" university. [obviously poor families can benefit from bursaries so this is not a relevant argument]
The waste is students picking courses just to do something or just because they are vaguely interested in them (and then they get all the benefits afforded to students, including housing subsidies). And then they give up, or they fail, or once they graduate they realise that it gets them exactly 0 job. So huge waste of resources and time and, as mentioned, sometimes a way to hide youth unemployment.
Surely people/families in Germany/Austria, some of the richest countries in the world, can afford to pay something towards education costs
rich country doesn't mean rich people. we have high taxes and lower average wages. high rent in cities. in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing. none of them could ever afford to pay for university.
and if more than 60% of students need financial support, all we are doing is adding expensive bureaucracy. might as well just make it free instead.
rich country doesn't mean rich people. we have high taxes and lower average wages. high rent in cities. in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing. none of them could ever afford to pay for university.
and if more than 60% of students need financial support, all we are doing is adding expensive bureaucracy. might as well just make it free instead.
That does not answer my question and it is obviously not true that people cannot afford to pay for university, not least when we haven't mentioned a price.
Every time similar topics are discussed it's odd to read some comments because they give the impression that people in the richest countries in the world have no disposable income (they can't pay for healthcare, they can't pay for higher education, they can't pay for public transport, etc). Of course there are poor people, but the majority have plenty of disposable income (that's what a rich country means).
> "in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing"
This does not mean that this is a necessity it shows some issues with the housing market and housing policy, not that people are "poor". In fact, if the majority of people in a rich European city get housing subsidies it seems quite clear that this has nothing to do with poverty and not being able to afford it, but is a policy/market disfunction issue.
To go back to France, in France every student gets housing subsidies. This does not mean that they need it, it's just that the choice of policy has been to dish out subsidies without consideration of need.
Every time similar topics are discussed it's odd to read some comments because they give the impression that people in the richest countries in the world have no disposable income (they can't pay for healthcare, they can't pay for higher education, they can't pay for public transport, etc). Of course there are poor people, but the majority have plenty of disposable income (that's what a rich country means).
> "in vienna, more than 60% of people live in subsidized housing"
This does not mean that this is a necessity it shows some issues with the housing market and housing policy, not that people are "poor". In fact, if the majority of people in a rich European city get housing subsidies it seems quite clear that this has nothing to do with poverty and not being able to afford it, but is a policy/market disfunction issue.
To go back to France, in France every student gets housing subsidies. This does not mean that they need it, it's just that the choice of policy has been to dish out subsidies without consideration of need.
The difference smells like culture from across the ocean.
It's interesting that you chose Germany as an example of ease of access to the education you want. Maybe if you managed to get into a Gymnasium and didn't fuck up when you were like... 10? Sure. Otherwise yeah, good luck getting into university for the degree you want.
You can actually get a university allowance through your job experience.
You can get Bafoeg (financial support which you get for free) if you have a job degree and go to the BOS to get your university degree that way.
You can get Bafoeg (financial support which you get for free) if you have a job degree and go to the BOS to get your university degree that way.
in my time bafoeg was 50% loan, and it would only cover living expenses and study material. if university cost actual money, financial support for it would be another thing entirely.
the point is: does charging for university and then giving financial support to those who need it really change anything other than causing more bureaucracy and risking that some people can't go because they don't qualify for financial support yet shy away from the expense?
reducing taxes so that people have more money so they can afford paid education is not going to lead to more students but less.
the point is: does charging for university and then giving financial support to those who need it really change anything other than causing more bureaucracy and risking that some people can't go because they don't qualify for financial support yet shy away from the expense?
reducing taxes so that people have more money so they can afford paid education is not going to lead to more students but less.
Maybe if you managed to get into a Gymnasium and didn't fuck up when you were like... 10
not true. there is also the gesamtschule which delays the decision to make the abitur until you are in 10th grade.
40% of students in germany qualify for university (and another 10% for fachhochschule). that is much higher than the university admission rates in the US.
not true. there is also the gesamtschule which delays the decision to make the abitur until you are in 10th grade.
40% of students in germany qualify for university (and another 10% for fachhochschule). that is much higher than the university admission rates in the US.
And then, what happens after that decision? How free are you to get the education you want after that? If you pick a path and then want something harder or better, say going into médecine in school. How hard is it going to be? And aren't 10th graders around like 14 years old?
Again, that's just as bad as paying for education. At least with money you can work or take a loan and chose the path you want even at age 20 or 25, you're not locked in by a choice that was made when you were a teenager. Yes, I know you also have to get good grades in the US or Canada, but at least here in Canada you can basically almost always go back to university, take a few perp courses and be eligible to apply even for medecine.
Again, that's just as bad as paying for education. At least with money you can work or take a loan and chose the path you want even at age 20 or 25, you're not locked in by a choice that was made when you were a teenager. Yes, I know you also have to get good grades in the US or Canada, but at least here in Canada you can basically almost always go back to university, take a few perp courses and be eligible to apply even for medecine.
why are people downvoting that comment? are you disputing the facts stated? those are the numbers i found on a quick search. if they are wrong, then please share references to correct them.
naive. free market shows what generates revenue.
And what generates revenue is exactly what I described: what we want and value and thus are willing to pay for.
I don't see what's naive there. On the contrary this is absolute realism. And furthermore this goes hand in hand with individual liberty. Alternatives have been tried, and they failed...
I don't see what's naive there. On the contrary this is absolute realism. And furthermore this goes hand in hand with individual liberty. Alternatives have been tried, and they failed...
oh boy.
Because we as a society are the only reason who holds us back.
We use capitalism to control resources etc. but only thanks to controled capitalism / politics we are keeping pure capitalsim under control (like minimum wage, labor laws etc.).
We could create a new system. A system which determines how many resources we as society can produce on one side and want we need + want on the other side. Than we optimize our system for this.
Which would mean we would get rid of everything we don't need and optimize everything we can.
We don't need thousends of different companies doing simliar things just different with their own overhead. Capitalism needs this to control itself.
We use capitalism to control resources etc. but only thanks to controled capitalism / politics we are keeping pure capitalsim under control (like minimum wage, labor laws etc.).
We could create a new system. A system which determines how many resources we as society can produce on one side and want we need + want on the other side. Than we optimize our system for this.
Which would mean we would get rid of everything we don't need and optimize everything we can.
We don't need thousends of different companies doing simliar things just different with their own overhead. Capitalism needs this to control itself.
It’s strange to me that you can’t see the correlation between free markets and their products while simultaneously looking forward to more production from those same markets.
Get rid of all unnecessary things and overhead in our society and we do not have a resource issue.
Focus on automatisation and we don't have a production issue.
Its a man made problem, not some kind of magic rule.
Focus on automatisation and we don't have a production issue.
Its a man made problem, not some kind of magic rule.
I think this is one of those wordcel arguments that sounds nice but probably has no bearing on actual reality.
If we live in a world where human effort has no marginal utility, we also live in a world where human life has no value. If we don't, you're in a world where you're competing with other humans for some set of resources. Regardless of whether you believe that you are competing with them, others are competing with you.
I think competition is perhaps one of the most basic rules of reality.
If we live in a world where human effort has no marginal utility, we also live in a world where human life has no value. If we don't, you're in a world where you're competing with other humans for some set of resources. Regardless of whether you believe that you are competing with them, others are competing with you.
I think competition is perhaps one of the most basic rules of reality.
> 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 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).
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 rather difficult to provide the same level of quality of courses to the masses than say select few undergrads.
I agree
> 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).
I'd throw MBA in there too (unless from the top dozen biz schools, Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Booth, Kellogg, Sloan, Haas etc.)
I agree
> 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).
I'd throw MBA in there too (unless from the top dozen biz schools, Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, Booth, Kellogg, Sloan, Haas etc.)
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.
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.
These universities have turned from "growing our mission of education" (in which, wouldn't you want the largest number of people possible to benefit from some of the best minds in the world who work for you?) to "sustaining our business".
> 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?
Obvious follow up: Are there state universities using these techniques to drive down costs and be more flexible?
Community colleges for sure -- I would argue they have taken up the mantle of truly educating, especially those from lower income brackets, and are free for lower income students in many states. They also have good transfer pathways to a four-year university. It's by far the most affordable way to get a bachelor's degree.
Some flagship state schools (example [0]) offer free tuition for lower income students providing they maintain a certain GPA.
But middle class families have a hard time as they are usually above the threshold for aid, and yet tuition (and housing) is a huge financial burden.
[0] https://pathway.uoregon.edu/award-overview
Some flagship state schools (example [0]) offer free tuition for lower income students providing they maintain a certain GPA.
But middle class families have a hard time as they are usually above the threshold for aid, and yet tuition (and housing) is a huge financial burden.
[0] https://pathway.uoregon.edu/award-overview
There definitely are state schools that work hard to drive costs down for in-state students.
Florida is weirdly enough a good example as the sunshine state scholars program provides a reasonably approachable way for any student in the state to enter high school with the intent on going to university and graduate with the criteria to get 50%, 75%, or 100% tuition and fees covered under the sunshine state scholars program.
Then you have states like Virginia who have some of the fastest rising costs of attendance in the country and where cost of attendance at state schools (which are generally supposed to be cheaper) actually ends up being comparable or even more than cost of attendance at private universities.
Florida is weirdly enough a good example as the sunshine state scholars program provides a reasonably approachable way for any student in the state to enter high school with the intent on going to university and graduate with the criteria to get 50%, 75%, or 100% tuition and fees covered under the sunshine state scholars program.
Then you have states like Virginia who have some of the fastest rising costs of attendance in the country and where cost of attendance at state schools (which are generally supposed to be cheaper) actually ends up being comparable or even more than cost of attendance at private universities.
The community college system does a good deal here. As an example in California, students can get a great deal of their undergrad lower division work done at a community college for a fraction of even UC or State university cost (which for instate students is already fairly low).
Community colleges are also where folks would normally turn to for casual the classes they wanted to take but didn’t necessarily want the formalities of the full degree. Online delivery of there helped further but vs MOOCs, CC has geographic and residency restrictions for who can actually study there.
Community colleges are also where folks would normally turn to for casual the classes they wanted to take but didn’t necessarily want the formalities of the full degree. Online delivery of there helped further but vs MOOCs, CC has geographic and residency restrictions for who can actually study there.
The Open University in the UK is one example, and has been around since 1969.
Oregon State has a large offering of online undergrad and grad programs: https://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/. There were 11,430 ecampus students in Fall 2023 [1].
The ecampus tuition (~13K/year) is still substantial compared to the in-person tuition for out-of-state students (~38K/year), and nearly identical to the in-person tuition for in-state students (~14K/year) [2].
[1] https://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/news/2023-ecampus-enrollment... [2] https://financialaid.oregonstate.edu/cost-attendance
The ecampus tuition (~13K/year) is still substantial compared to the in-person tuition for out-of-state students (~38K/year), and nearly identical to the in-person tuition for in-state students (~14K/year) [2].
[1] https://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/news/2023-ecampus-enrollment... [2] https://financialaid.oregonstate.edu/cost-attendance
The State of New York is offering free tuition at any SUNY school for all students who reside in the state with incomes up to $125,000 for dependent students; $60,000 for married students with no dependents; $30,000 for independent single students with no dependents.
This will make a huge difference in the market for degrees.
This will make a huge difference in the market for 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.
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.
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.
> already make their educations free
yes, but not their _degrees_, which is what I said. Sure, Harvard can give all of its classes online away for free, why? Because the actual value you get from attending Harvard is not the education. When you go to get a job, company X doesn't care that you "took some classes at Harvard", they do care that you "graduated from Harvard".
yes, but not their _degrees_, which is what I said. Sure, Harvard can give all of its classes online away for free, why? Because the actual value you get from attending Harvard is not the education. When you go to get a job, company X doesn't care that you "took some classes at Harvard", they do care that you "graduated from Harvard".
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.
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.
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.
why can't online universities have TAs like real universities? Pay for a course, have someone who completed some more advanced course grade your work or provide one-on-one feedback!
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.
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.
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 agree that the education system would be better with this kind of arrangement, but it doesn't happen because of economics and american independence.
What certifying body would administer the exam? A university that would miss out on $30,000 to $200,000+ on a student attending classes? A government institution influenced by politics that would likely end up creating inadequate testing leading to irrelevant examinations disregarded by most employers or anyone of substance?
The only reason why exams work for trades is because it is very well defined what a plumber needs to know. Even for software engineers, certificates are useless for most because what engineers need to know is rather abstract or highly dependent from job to job
What certifying body would administer the exam? A university that would miss out on $30,000 to $200,000+ on a student attending classes? A government institution influenced by politics that would likely end up creating inadequate testing leading to irrelevant examinations disregarded by most employers or anyone of substance?
The only reason why exams work for trades is because it is very well defined what a plumber needs to know. Even for software engineers, certificates are useless for most because what engineers need to know is rather abstract or highly dependent from job to job
> 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.
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.
For the wealthy, University degrees might just be a Veblen good.
It might be the "same", but there will be people that judge them for getting the cheap one.
It might be the "same", but there will be people that judge them for getting the cheap one.
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.
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 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.
Not trying to be harsh but the operative word in your post is “I”.
you want to spend 5000 $ on a mooc about plato?
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.
I suppose you are quite rich then. Well, good for you and good luck with your studies of ancient Greek philosophy.
And you might want to check this out: https://truthofyoga.com/p/knowledge. Not affiliated with it. Would like to do it but can't justify almost 2000 Euro for this course. For you on the other hand it is maybe even too cheap. The guy is teaching at Oxford. Take a look at it.
And you might want to check this out: https://truthofyoga.com/p/knowledge. Not affiliated with it. Would like to do it but can't justify almost 2000 Euro for this course. For you on the other hand it is maybe even too cheap. The guy is teaching at Oxford. Take a look at it.
The title is misleading, it may suggest Harvard or MIT lost $800M.
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>
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>
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.
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.
This sounds increasingly common in US corp culture, it was reasonably common when I worked there (when times were good) but perhaps now even more so.
I interviewed a few years ago. Did not get an offer. It all seemed very white, a very salesy culture, and with very inflated titles.
How would you feel if I complained about a company being a bit "too brown"? Since when did we normalize this subtle racism towards white people?
For a workplace to be very white means they are self-selecting whiteness for their employees instead of hiring in a way that gives equal opportunity to all people. In other words, they have (probably unconscious but still inexcusable) racism in their hiring practices. Reasonable people would agree this is a bad thing.
i think he's referring to the collar (not the skin) as in white collar work vs blue or brown collar.
Valid point - if that was the intention then my bad, bit of an overreaction.
I really don’t think this is the case
The US is a white-majority country where the power and money are disproportionately in the hands of white people.
When a company (in education!) that makes lots of noise about diversity obviously favors hiring white people, it's noteworthy.
If we were in some brown-majority country where white people were excluded from money and power, yes, that would be noteworthy. Call it out! The US, despite what Trump tells his MAGA followers, is not that country.
When a company (in education!) that makes lots of noise about diversity obviously favors hiring white people, it's noteworthy.
If we were in some brown-majority country where white people were excluded from money and power, yes, that would be noteworthy. Call it out! The US, despite what Trump tells his MAGA followers, is not that country.
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 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/
What a great write up!
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.
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.
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's due diligence might have missed that they weren't getting Walter Lewin's popular material, he's not bankrupt, still going strong!!
https://www.youtube.com/@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259/vide...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWnfJ0-xXRE&list=PLyQSN7X0ro...
https://www.youtube.com/@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259/vide...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWnfJ0-xXRE&list=PLyQSN7X0ro...
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.
There's a sucker born every minute
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
Excellent write up, Dhawal Shah. You have been bringing the happenings of the MOOC world to general public in a very good way.
MOOCs have provided incredible value to society and it's unfortunate that we're only able to view them through the lens of profit/loss. I wish that universities would have committed to providing these products despite cost just as a halo project to improve their public image.
(Copy-pasting here my post comment)
As a member of the Open edX technical oversight committee, and a long time core contributor, I’d like to comment on the future of Open edX — the open source project. I’m not an employee of Axim or 2U though, so I can’t say anything about their plans.
As OP explained, Axim is the only “cash-rich entity” to have emerged after the edX acquisition. They retained control of the open source Open edX project, and are now in charge of its maintenance and improvement. That is with the support of many open source contributors, of course.
For those who don’t know, Open edX is the piece of software on which runs edX.org, but also MITx and many other open online learning platforms around the world. It’s a big software project that has managed to carve a niche in a complex ecosystem.
The analysis that Axim is mostly a grant-giving organisation is very far from the reality. Yes, Axim is allocating part of its endowment to grants, though I don’t have much insight into this aspect of their mission. What I do know, is that Axim is also investing a very substantial amount of time and money in the development of the open source project, and that is no trivial feat. You can make your own opinion by checking the project activity on GitHub and the Open edX forum.
To put things simply, the open source project is undergoing an important transition where we have fewer dedicated engineers (because of the layoffs at 2U) but much better project management and focus (because the project roadmap is no longer dictated by edX). There’s also a lot of internal debate of where the project should be headed, strategically speaking (I have my own opinion, which you can find elsewhere). None of this would be possible without Axim and its financial independence.
This transition is long and complicated, and it’s not one we can accelerate just by throwing money at it. Also, I like to think of education as a complex ecosystem that improves in incremental steps. AI and personalised learning might play a role in that process, but they are most certainly not a panacea. It would be meaningless to invest these $735 million in such a narrow scope. Instead, it makes much more sense to to build a stable foundation for the future of open online learning.
In a nutshell: don’t give up on Open edX just yet, the best things are yet to come :)
As a member of the Open edX technical oversight committee, and a long time core contributor, I’d like to comment on the future of Open edX — the open source project. I’m not an employee of Axim or 2U though, so I can’t say anything about their plans.
As OP explained, Axim is the only “cash-rich entity” to have emerged after the edX acquisition. They retained control of the open source Open edX project, and are now in charge of its maintenance and improvement. That is with the support of many open source contributors, of course.
For those who don’t know, Open edX is the piece of software on which runs edX.org, but also MITx and many other open online learning platforms around the world. It’s a big software project that has managed to carve a niche in a complex ecosystem.
The analysis that Axim is mostly a grant-giving organisation is very far from the reality. Yes, Axim is allocating part of its endowment to grants, though I don’t have much insight into this aspect of their mission. What I do know, is that Axim is also investing a very substantial amount of time and money in the development of the open source project, and that is no trivial feat. You can make your own opinion by checking the project activity on GitHub and the Open edX forum.
To put things simply, the open source project is undergoing an important transition where we have fewer dedicated engineers (because of the layoffs at 2U) but much better project management and focus (because the project roadmap is no longer dictated by edX). There’s also a lot of internal debate of where the project should be headed, strategically speaking (I have my own opinion, which you can find elsewhere). None of this would be possible without Axim and its financial independence.
This transition is long and complicated, and it’s not one we can accelerate just by throwing money at it. Also, I like to think of education as a complex ecosystem that improves in incremental steps. AI and personalised learning might play a role in that process, but they are most certainly not a panacea. It would be meaningless to invest these $735 million in such a narrow scope. Instead, it makes much more sense to to build a stable foundation for the future of open online learning.
In a nutshell: don’t give up on Open edX just yet, the best things are yet to come :)
Where can I find your opinion on how the project should be headed?
The presentation we made in July at the Open edX 2024 conference with my colleague Faqir Bilal should be available on youtube soon-ish. The tl;dw is that we should focus on a different market vertical, which is residential/blended/hybrid learning.
RIP. I always wondered what was going on with edX. They were great back in the day. I was introduced to the Stanford CS curriculum through them. At least MIT OCW lives on! Don't see that going anywhere ... unless somehow they sell to some shitty private company and invest the profit into nothing.
if the original eDx can take the $800M and make a new open and free ed content platform (like the original idea of MOOCs before vultures like 2U starting trying to monetize it), then I'd say its a win for Harvard and MIT. 2U going bankrupt may also be a win.
Open edX is available.
Although it's just a platform, you'd need to create your own courses.
Although it's just a platform, you'd need to create your own courses.
Yeah, they'd have to use the $800M to repopulate it with content.
There is a ton of content in multiple platforms powered by Open edX. Huge initiatives and universities around the world are using it.
> In 2021, the unprofitable 2U bought edX, an unprofitable non-profit, for a staggering $800 million
How do you sell a non-profit?
Or, more specifically, how do you purchase to gain control?
Board members aren't supposed to sell board seats or do anything for self enrichment
How do you sell a non-profit?
Or, more specifically, how do you purchase to gain control?
Board members aren't supposed to sell board seats or do anything for self enrichment
The original non-profit edX sold its brand and most assets to 2U. The remaining non-profit entity was temporarily renamed “The Center for Reimagining Learning.” Last year, this organization was officially named Axim Collaborative and appointed a new CEO. ... Axim appears to have become primarily a grant-giving organization. Besides supporting Open edX, there’s little evidence of using its “substantial resources” for innovation as initially promised. ... Axim’s current assets exceed the total amount edX spent during its entire non-profit phase.
A nonprofit built something, sold it for a lot more than it cost to create it, and now has the cash which it is legally required to spend furthering its mission. This seems generally reasonable to me, though of course Axim may end up spending its millions poorly.
A nonprofit built something, sold it for a lot more than it cost to create it, and now has the cash which it is legally required to spend furthering its mission. This seems generally reasonable to me, though of course Axim may end up spending its millions poorly.
A good summary, although The Crimson is not happy with the results of the deal:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/23/climaco-harvard...
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/23/climaco-harvard...
Now they have the opportunity to buy it back from the for-profit in bankruptcy proceedings
Honestly? It would be a hilarious turn of events. I hope they do it and use the remaining money to revitalize their offerings and infrastructure.
Isn't that kinda what happened with gumroad?
Thanks! That’s pretty cool and practical
I could have thought of selling some assets, I didn’t think of selling even the name of the non profit and just renaming the old one
It is funny that the original one now has cash that it doesnt spend after years of high churn, I’ll check out its non profit tax filings
I could have thought of selling some assets, I didn’t think of selling even the name of the non profit and just renaming the old one
It is funny that the original one now has cash that it doesnt spend after years of high churn, I’ll check out its non profit tax filings
Harvard and MIT sold the assets to 2U; the money was rolled over into a new nonprofit:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/digital-... - They put $80M into edX and got back $800M.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/digital-... - They put $80M into edX and got back $800M.
Yep, definitely 2U's $800M mistake, not Harvard and MIT. They made off like bandits.
Many universities like to claim that their mission is to educate the next generation of citizens and leaders, rather than to make off like bandits.
Some would call it a failure to uphold that mission, even if it was good for their bank balance.
Some would call it a failure to uphold that mission, even if it was good for their bank balance.
I don’t know how this transaction went down, but it’s very likely they didn’t purchase the organization itself, but rather its assets. The surviving organization would then dispose of the resulting cash in a mission-oriented fashion and shutdown thereafter.
Yeah, the article’s phrasing makes it ambiguous
I like that non profits can be asset stripped, I just wouldn’t call the thing sold to be a non-profit
I like that non profits can be asset stripped, I just wouldn’t call the thing sold to be a non-profit
I gather that non-profit board membership doesn't pay very well.
Consequently, when the non-profit in question has something valuable (like market share or branding), there are some misaligned incentives.
Consequently, when the non-profit in question has something valuable (like market share or branding), there are some misaligned incentives.
Board members at a non-profit cannot profit from sales of corporate assets. if that's what you mean.
There's direct payments, and then there's the infinite number of ways to receive indirect compensation.
I suppose it's possible a non-profit board member is taking illegal/fraudulent kickbacks. Quite an accusation though. i guess there are "misaligned incentives" if a board member is willing to act illegally or fraudulently.
thats not what’s necessary at all
non profit salaries of board members can be extremely high, the aggregate reporting on this is poor despite the public filings, as the filings say the same things in wildly different ways
I think the weirdest meme in the non profit world is how many act poor, or actually are undercompensated, but the answer to why is “its a non profit soo….” as opposed to “the board chooses to underpay me soo…”
additionally, many things can be done with assets. even if a non profit does not directly buy a board member’s investments, it can use its funds to pump that investment. for example, buy 2 houses on the board member’s block at inflated prices, so the board member can sell their own house at a huge profit. can do the same with anything especially illiquid things like art with small float. can do it with small stocks that are easy to pump too. can do it with crypto that wont be scrutinized for pumping. as long as the transactions aren't directly to the restricted party it meets all regulations.
non profit salaries of board members can be extremely high, the aggregate reporting on this is poor despite the public filings, as the filings say the same things in wildly different ways
I think the weirdest meme in the non profit world is how many act poor, or actually are undercompensated, but the answer to why is “its a non profit soo….” as opposed to “the board chooses to underpay me soo…”
additionally, many things can be done with assets. even if a non profit does not directly buy a board member’s investments, it can use its funds to pump that investment. for example, buy 2 houses on the board member’s block at inflated prices, so the board member can sell their own house at a huge profit. can do the same with anything especially illiquid things like art with small float. can do it with small stocks that are easy to pump too. can do it with crypto that wont be scrutinized for pumping. as long as the transactions aren't directly to the restricted party it meets all regulations.
It's not quite an accusation but mainstream practice. Agarwal, in the early days, earned more than everyone else combined, and took credit for the work of others. After the sale, he was offered a coushy job at 2U.
Funneling nonprofit money into private pockets is like an art at MIT. How many professors are millionaires? How many would be without MIT?
Funneling nonprofit money into private pockets is like an art at MIT. How many professors are millionaires? How many would be without MIT?
And, almost to demonstrate the digital divide, almost every MOOC there is lacking true Accessibility, therefore making it even harder for blind and visually impaired people to piggy-back on existing education infrastructure.
Attention span is dropping like a stone. I think MOOCs should re-format more like Tik Tok and web video games. Maybe have an interactive AI professor as a guide.
Deep learning requires attention span.
I fear that shifting to a TikTok style education is just another lead towards an Idiocracy.
I fear that shifting to a TikTok style education is just another lead towards an Idiocracy.
time for Axim buy back edx for 5 cent on the dollar
I didn't know edx was bought by a company that went on to go bankrupt. I have two courses on edx that I consider exceptional, and worry I might lose access to them.
What are your thoughts on that?
What are your thoughts on that?
A bit harsh on axim I think. I'd like to see some details about where the money has gone other than "grants" before declaring it a failure.
I agree it could have been more detailed, but sitting on 7/8ths of your money with seemingly no plans does not inspire confidence.
I don't. The place is full of worst thieves and con artists from edX, and very few people who are competent or care.
I'd like to hear more about this and how you know it.
Not suspicious at all. Buying it for 800M and then going out of business. Good deal for edX.
EdX sold for $800M and is running an open platform?
Sounds like it was incredibly successful.
Sounds like it was incredibly successful.
[deleted]
- 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.