[HN Gopher] MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech fir... ___________________________________________________________________ MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U Author : rolandm Score : 358 points Date : 2021-06-29 11:35 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (news.mit.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu) | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | I guess we're sticking to youtube university then.. | kerkeslager wrote: | If Julius Caesar had taken Alexandria in 2021, he'd have sold the | library to a for-profit corporation. | | What a terrible loss. | ludamad wrote: | Why now? Is online learning not a big opportunity, or not the | opportunity for them? | lstmemery wrote: | This really feels like the end of an era. I got my start going | through the MITx computer science and probability courses. I | wouldn't be a data scientist today if I didn't have those | resources available. | | I now understand how to self-learn difficult subjects with | textbooks and online lectures but I really appreciated MITx's | commitment to making rigorous courses freely available. | brutus1213 wrote: | This seems like terrible news :( After the focus on monetization | of platforms such as udemy and coursera, edx seemed to give me a | sliver of hope that education will be open. Given the immense | trust funds held by Harvard and MIT, I had hoped money would not | be a factor and these institutions would be able to develop their | platform in the open. | | I'd like to add .. non-profit does not mean free to end users. | There are many good non-profits and there are many terrible ones | (highly paid execs, insane amount of money spent on marketing). | dalbasal wrote: | Time will tell. | | Honestly, what I think is missing is a good destination. What | is edX trying to be? | benrbray wrote: | I tried to use edX for the first time recently to take a "food | science" course, but was disappointed to see that they've | resorted to the same dark patterns as Coursera and others, such | as: | | * Removing your access to course materials when the class is | done, and disallowing access to past versions of the class. | | * Pressuring you into joining as many courses as possible, due | to fear of missing out. When you visit the site, every course | says "Course began ($TODAY-5)" to make you feel like "wow, I | got here just in time! I better sign up for everything!". | | * Breaking courses into useless 2-minute chunks and constant | unhelpful quizzes. I really just want to hear the lecturer | speak for 20-30 minutes at a time uninterrupted, especially if | I'm listening while doing dishes etc. | | * An unsettling UI that feels less like it's about presenting | information in a compact and/or digestible way and more like | it's tracking my every move and waiting for an opportunity to | pounce. Everything is a button or clickthrough menu that | requires interaction. | | Thankfully MIT OpenCourseWare still has plenty of lecture | videos / course materials available. But I'm quite afraid for | the future. | odessacubbage wrote: | >useless 2-minute chunks this is what keeps turning me off of | moocs tbh. so many seem like they're designed specifically | for people with no attention span... and no one else. | maayank wrote: | > * Breaking courses into useless 2-minute chunks and | constant unhelpful quizzes. I really just want to hear the | lecturer speak for 20-30 minutes at a time uninterrupted, | especially if I'm listening while doing dishes etc. | | That's actually one of my favorite things when taking online | courses... | benrbray wrote: | That's cool, do what works for you! I just wish I had the | option to disable the quizzes/breaks and see it all in one | go. I personally like to watch talks / lectures while I'm | doing dishes, but I can't click on the quizzes with my | soapy hands. | | I'm frustrated that tools that are meant to be _empowering_ | actually prevent people from customizing the course content | to suit their own learning style / constraints. | ArtWomb wrote: | Not surprised a cooking class doesn't lend itself to an easy | online port! But the lecture content from Harvard's Science | and Cooking with El Bulli's Ferran Adria is still as you | mention freely available online for all to enjoy. I recently | had a free week pass to Masterclass. And though I found the | content more entertaining than enlightening (How to be a Boss | with Anna Wintour). There is something to be said about | educational content that is given a Hollywood production | budget. I think it was always inevitable institutes of higher | education would seek auxiliary revenue streams from MOOCs. | And an influx of capital could result in lecture videos that | are Netflix quality, and that enjoy near 100% levels of | retention ;) | | Science and Cooking: A Dialogue | Lecture 1 (2010) | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9av8-lhJS8 | drran wrote: | Watching of a movie about agent 007 will not make you a | super spy. | | To learn something, you need to watch a lecture, then | receive a task, perform the task and provide a result, then | receive feedback, and, finally, _learn_ from the feedback. | | Harvard video lectures are just another form of TV. They | are mostly useless without Harvard. | benrbray wrote: | Those are actually exactly the lectures I watched before | attempting to join the very disappointing EdX course by the | same professors :). | | The lectures on YouTube were evening lectures meant to | summarize each week of class, but the actual in-person | students learned more about the actual chemistry involved, | and did guided experiments to test different properties of | food. I was hoping the EdX course by the same professors | would give me an approximation that experience, but I was | really disappointed. Technically there's a lot of good | information still there, but the main problems were that | the lectures were split into 2-minute chunks and the EdX UI | constantly gets in the way of actually absorbing the | content. I decided to buy a couple books on the topic | instead. | geodel wrote: | You have made excellent points. So many of these courses feel | that they are out to make one feel like shit if they decide | to do free audit instead of paying. And this is despite | telling multiple times the one is not interested in | certificates which now can be attached on Linkedin. | threatofrain wrote: | > MIT OpenCourseWare still has plenty of lecture videos / | course materials available. | | Hmm, I'd disagree. For example, Analysis 1 is a very desired | course for many technical majors. Go look at OpenCourseWare's | offerings for Analysis 1, perhaps peruse some of the videos. | | Then go look for other desired courses -- missing content is | characteristic and not the exception. | benrbray wrote: | I guess I see it from this perspective: I don't start my | search for learning materials at OCW, but I often end up | there through a Google search! Sometimes, it's for a | surprisingly advanced / specific topic, too. | turadg wrote: | This is a dilution of the meaning of "dark pattern". | darkpatterns.org which coined the term (and Wikipedia cites) | says, "When you use websites and apps, you don't read every | word on every page - you skim read and make assumptions. If a | company wants to trick you into doing something, they can | take advantage of this by making a page look like it is | saying one thing when it is in fact saying another." | | I don't see any of that in your observations. Moreover, what | you attribute to some nefarious purpose is better explained | by effective curriculum design. I haven't used edX lately but | I worked at Coursera and I can tell you that the people who | make that product have a passion to support learning in the | world. | | * Removing access to course materials: it's a course, not a | content library. When you can access it anytime, you're less | likely to do the work of learning. You also won't be part of | a learning cohort, which is a valuable learning activity. | | * Encouraging you to sign up for courses: this is a problem? | Wouldn't someone who wants you to learn encourage you to sign | up for courses? "Course began ($TODAY - 5)" that would be | deceptive. Are you claiming that edX or Coursera does this? | | * Breaking courses into chunks and quizzes. How the heck is | this deceptive? This design decision is backed by learning | science. Listening while doing dishes does not get you the | best learning outcomes; it's a university-level course not a | podcast. | | * "Unsettling UI" "opportunity to pounce" I really don't know | what to make of this one. | cstejerean wrote: | EdX definitely shows "Starts $TODAY" on courses with self | paced start any time schedules. I know it does this and it | still gets me every time by creating this false sense of | urgency that I must enroll today lest I miss the | opportunity. | pyuser583 wrote: | "Dark pattern" is getting way too popular. | benrbray wrote: | > I haven't used edX lately but I worked at Coursera and I | can tell you that the people who make that product have a | passion to support learning in the world. | | I don't doubt that there are people working at EdX / | Coursera with a passion for education. I just think maybe | these companies are moving in a direction that is at odds | with the goal of providing free education, everywhere, to | everyone, at any stage in their life. | | I enrolled in some of the earliest MOOCs. Sebastian Thrun's | original ai-class.com which now redirects to Udacity. I | took the first iteration of Andrew Ng's "Machine Learning" | on Coursera, as well as Geoffrey Hinton's original NNML | course. Back then, everything was open. Course materials | were shared freely, and the archives were available for | years after the course concluded. There was an autograder | for coding assignments that didn't get in your way too | much. | | Slowly, more and more roadblocks were put in place. | | What was your experience like at Coursera? Did you get a | chance to see how decisions about the UI and structure of | courses were made? Did you get a sense of how much the | marketing / business side of things interfered with the | education side? | | > better explained by effective curriculum design. | | For who? Maybe these sites have created a product that | works well for a certain niche of people, and they've | hyper-optimized for that. Great. But that's not really the | dream we all had for it ten years ago. | | Like I said in a sibling comment: I've already been through | school, and already know my own learning process. I find | that the practices Coursera / EdX actively get in the way | of my learning. | | > darkpatterns.org which coined the term | | Language changes. Most people include in their meaning of | "dark pattern" things like "artificially restricting you | from performing actions that the website is fully capable | of performing, with dubious or justification or malicious | intent". | | I don't think EdX is malicious, just that their reasons for | restricting usage of course materials are dubious, and | conflict with their stated mission. | | > Removing access to course materials: it's a course, not a | content library. | | Why can't it be a content library? I learn a lot at | libraries! | | > When you can access it anytime, you're less likely to do | the work of learning. | | This structure helps some people, sure. But some people | like me are not full-time students. Some weeks I have lots | of time to dig in, other weeks I don't have time to even | watch a lecture. Moreover, I'm learning for myself, not for | credentials, so why should I care what a website thinks of | my progress? | | > "Course began ($TODAY - 5)" that would be deceptive. Are | you claiming that edX or Coursera does this? | | I don't have definitive proof, but every time I visit the | EdX or Coursera sites it _just so happens_ that the _exact | course I was searching for_ started within a week of the | current date. Maybe I 'm being paranoid. | | > "Unsettling UI" "opportunity to pounce" I really don't | know what to make of this one. | | This was mostly a joke :) | | > Breaking courses into chunks and quizzes. How the heck is | this deceptive? This design decision is backed by learning | science. Listening while doing dishes does not get you the | best learning outcomes; it's a university-level course not | a podcast. | | Again, I'm not a student. I trust my own learning process, | which is impeded by constant quizzes. I'm doing this to | broaden my knowledge. I don't have time to enroll in a | college class, but I have time to listen to a few lectures | when doing dishes, and read a couple book chapters per | week. | | Coursera and others are technically capable of opening up | their service to this use case -- it doesn't cost them | anything -- so why not do it? | | In a certain sense, online education is thriving! There are | tons of video lectures on YouTube available for free and I | can easily pirate any textbook I want to with a quick | Google search. It's just that Coursera / EdX / etc don't | really fit into that for me. I really wish they did. | bobobob420 wrote: | "but I worked at Coursera and I can tell you that the | people who make that product have a passion to support | learning in the world." | | lol, no one will take your points seriously with your clear | bias. Coursera is utter shit and it is sad to see edX go | down the same path. I guess because the people at Coursera | are passionate it means the business does not have a desire | to make money as much as a bank and thus the original OP's | points are not valid. | light_hue_1 wrote: | I think it's funny that you mention learning science. | Actually, all of these patterns go against everything we | know about teaching anyone anything. | | * Removing access to course materials is horrible! I use | old courses and books for reference all the time. When you | can access the course any time, you refresh your learning. | That's the key to long term retention. | | * FOMO to force people to work at your pace rather than | their pace is just as terrible. We know that students | working at their pace, with encouragement, is what really | works. Pushing people into courses when they aren't ready | is terrible. | | * Constant quizzes are a lazy version of what we know | works, which is engagement like | https://icampus.mit.edu/projects/teal/ Yes, quizzes are | part of it, but a small part, the focus is on making | courses interactive with meaningful work instead of boring | 1-out-of-n choices. Making such courses is hard, so they | take the easy and boring way out. | | * If users find the UI unsettling, like it's too focused on | tracking and too little on actual learning, that's a | legitimate and important complaint. Education is not about | getting arbitrarily high scores on some random online | quizzes. You want people to actually learn something for | the long run. | | It really looks like edX and Coursera are taking the exam- | driven horrors that are being inflicted on K-12 students | all the time and translating them to the web. This is no | way to teach. And you can see that with their extremely | poor retention rates. | threatofrain wrote: | > Removing access to course materials: it's a course, not a | content library. When you can access it anytime, you're | less likely to do the work of learning. You also won't be | part of a learning cohort, which is a valuable learning | activity. | | Uh huh. | chaosbutters314 wrote: | why is food science in quotes? you wouldnt put physics course | in quotes. As someone that works as an engineer in the food | industry, our work is just as rigorous as other fields. When | working with vendors that support different domains, they | always get excited to work with us since we have some of the | craziest and most challenging problems that are not straight | forward. While the work we do may not be critical to saving | the world and solving some critical problem, it does make a | difference in the grand scheme of things. | benrbray wrote: | I didn't mean it that way at all. They were intended more | like title-quotes than belittling-quotes. Everything I have | read / watched on the topic tells me that food science is a | really deep and interesting topic that demands expertise in | many different areas of chemistry, physics, and engineering | all at once! It's why I was so interested to take a course | in the first place! | whimsicalism wrote: | Science and cooking is well known as a blowoff course | @Harvard. | wrycoder wrote: | Food engineering, maybe. It's not science or even applied | science. | kilroywashere wrote: | something many don't know: you can torrent these courses. | redgrange wrote: | Maybe their internal research shows significant benefits to | the short chunks of lecture content. | hackermailman wrote: | OCW started doing the same annoying 10m chunks with their | scholar versions but so far have always still provided the | full unedited lecture as an option. | 4ec0755f5522 wrote: | The pushback you're getting on this is.... I mean i struggle | to find the words. If someone wants to not stare at a screen | during a lecture this is 100% ok and I literally cannot | fathom the idea that someone is "doing it wrong" if they do | not. | | If someone does this and they don't absorb the material | they..... watch the lecture again in a more focused manner. | It really is ok! | wodenokoto wrote: | > Breaking courses into useless 2-minute chunks and constant | unhelpful quizzes. I really just want to hear the lecturer | speak for 20-30 minutes at a time uninterrupted, especially | if I'm listening while doing dishes etc. | | I disagree. If you're doing dishes you are not taking a | college level course. One of the best things about digital | courses is that you don't have to spend an hour zoning out to | a professor talking and then spend a day doing exercises, but | the two can be intertwined and knowledge can be cemented. | | Of course it can be done terribly. But the best online | courses I've taken have split things up into small chunks | with relevant exercises. | yarky wrote: | > If you're doing dishes you are not taking a college level | course. | | It sounds like you assume everyone suffers ADHD and that's | no the cause, not everybody learns the same way and the | dish washing strategy always worked for me in college. | GrinningFool wrote: | > If you're doing dishes you are not taking a college level | course | | Relatively mindless tasks to occupy my hands frees up my | brain to focus. If I'm not doing dishes, I'm doodling or | playing with a coin or, or... | lmohseni wrote: | > If you're doing dishes you are not taking a college level | course. | | Sometimes I like to listen to a lecture 2 or 3 or even more | times. Sometimes I like to listen to a lecture when I'm | going for a run. Sometimes I like to listen while I'm doing | chores. Seems presumptuous to say I'm "not taking the | course" when we know that learning styles vary so much | between individuals. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _Sometimes I like to listen to a lecture 2 or 3 or even | more times._ | | YouTube has a ton of lectures, for free, that you can | view and/or listen to in this manner. | | But doing dishes during a lecture seems antithetical to | what they are trying to achieve with remote learning, and | isn't the use case they should be catering to. | benrbray wrote: | It's not really catering to _disable_ a feature. You can | call it "audit" mode and offer no credential. | jhbadger wrote: | The problem with "audit" mode is that it is more than | just not getting a credential (which I like most people | who already have their educations don't need) but that | often you can't take the online exams either. I still | want to know if I've learned the material properly! | ncallaway wrote: | Sure they could do that. You're essentially asking them | to implement an additional feature to handle a new use | case--a totally reasonable thing to ask. | | But it seems like it's _really_ a stretch to say "it's a | dark pattern to not implement this feature that covers my | use case". If not implementing a desired feature is a | "dark pattern", then I'm not really sure I know what | constitutes a dark pattern | benrbray wrote: | The behavior I'm describing is how the website _used to | work_. The put in _extra work_ to prevent users like me | from using it this way. | shkkmo wrote: | > But doing dishes during a lecture seems antithetical to | what they are trying to achieve. | | They are trying to exclude large swathes of the | population? | | It is extremely common for people with ADD to focus | better when they keep the part of their brain that | distracts them busy. In college I folded origami in | lectures so that my brain wouldn't go off on tangents | that would lead to me tuning out significant sections of | the lecture. | | Some people combat the tangents by being busy, and some | people embrace the tangents (which can be valuable for | understanding) by listening to lectures multiple times. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _It is extremely common for people with ADD to focus | better when they keep the part of their brain that | distracts them busy._ | | They should cater to those people as opposed to other | people for whom bite-sized learning works better? When | did we become a society that expects everyone else to | cater to our specific needs? No one is being "excluded". | | If that's the way you need to learn, fantastic. There are | options out there for you. It wasn't that long ago when | none of this existed. | shkkmo wrote: | > They should cater to those people as opposed to other | people for whom bite-sized learning works better? | | I didn't say that. The claim was made that learning in | this method is incompatible with taking a college level | course. I was demonstrating how that attitude is both | blatantly false and exclusionary. | | > When did we become a society that expects everyone else | to cater to our specific needs? | | The value of accessibility and inclusivity in education | has long been recognized. Why does online learning get a | pass from considering this? | | Edit: There is no problem with one person saying "I learn | better this way" and someone else saying "I learn better | this other way". The problem is when people say "the way | you learn is inferior and not suited to college level | material" because that is exclusionary. | wpietri wrote: | The notion that there's a single concept of the purpose | of remote learning and a single concept of how students | learn is exactly the problem. | | It baffles me that people expect to take a process | optimized for a neurotypical 20-year-old subsidized | enough to devote 100% time to study and apply it to | everybody else on the planet. I get how physical | universities ended up the way they did. But software is | infinitely soft and the internet is basically everywhere. | Insisting that everybody must learn the same way a bunch | of well-off youth did in 1950 is grossly exclusionary and | wasteful. | | In short, I don't care what the _universities_ are | _trying_ to achieve with remote learning. I care what the | _students_ _succeed in achieving_. Let 's focus on that. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _Insisting that everybody must learn the same way a | bunch of well-off youth did in 1950 is grossly | exclusionary and wasteful._ | | No one is saying "everyone must learn the same way". They | are teaching a specific way, and are under no obligation | to ensure that "your" unique needs are met. | | I mean, you say yourself there's no single concept of how | students learn. So maybe explain how you'd expect them to | to do it? | | There are all kinds of models out there. Udemy, Coursera, | good old recorded lectures on YouTube. Find what works | for you and use it. | kesselvon wrote: | In undergrad I'd listen to lectures while doing chores | all the time, especially when the concepts are | theoretical and it's more about just listening to the | information. | | It won't work for a calculus lecture, but for a lot of | topics it works just fine. | nobrains wrote: | Well, it depends on the kind of a learner you are. Some | learners prefer to listen to long lectures and some short | (and some might prefer interactivities, and others might | prefer one-way communication). This is where personalized | learning comes in, which is something in its infancy and | being explored by academicians and especially companies | focused on e-learning delivery. (I work in tech at an | online / blended learning higher education institution). | | Now this comment by OP (benrbray) and you (wodenokoto) | gives me an idea that courses can be designed in a way that | the learner can mention how much hands-free time they have | to spare now, depending on which the platform can hold off | any interactivities / quizzes until then (or something like | that), to make the learning process more personalized. | whimsicalism wrote: | The problem with this "personalized learning" approach is | that, outside of MIT OCW, everyone seems to have skipped | implementing the normal, long lecture in front of | blackboard to watch method straight to interactive laden | content. | benrbray wrote: | > I disagree. | | That's something we have in common :). My disagreement | spans a few dimensions: | | * I've already been through school. An undergraduate and | graduate degree already taught me how to learn. I have good | habits, and I know how to buckle down and study when | needed. For me, I find that having something to do with my | hands while listening to a lecture actually helps me stay | more focused on the topic. Before and after watching, I | like to review the slides, do some reading, and take notes. | | * I already have degrees. I'm not looking for extra | credential. I'm just looking to learn something new from | someone qualified to teach me who can filter out what's | important and what's not. It would be nice to have the | opportunity to listen without necessarily jumping through | all the hoops of a normal college class. | | * Sometimes I already have background knowledge that | overlaps with the course content. In these cases, it's | _really_ frustrating when a course won 't let me skip | around and focus on the topics that I want to learn. The | quickest way to get me to drop an online course is to make | me sit through lecture content that I've already learned | before somewhere else. | | * Different students learn in different ways. You might | like that the frequent quiz interruptions hold you | accountable. That's great! For me, I don't find it too | helpful. Usually the mid-lecture quizzes are simple "are | you listening?" questions that don't really test your deep | understanding. I'd rather go through a set of exercises all | at once after listening to the lecture. | | Basically, I see no reason online courses can't be | structured to give us more choices about how we want to | consume the content! | dataflow wrote: | Nothing wrong with what you want, but I'm thinking you | might not be the target audience? | myhrvold wrote: | A target audience is a good broader point about MOOCs and | online education. (I took edX courses during the "glory | days" of 2012 and 2013 -- and also tested out Udemy, | Coursera, and Udacity at the time.) | | The one-size-fits-most nature of online education goes | against the "customize your education at scale to learn" | which was an earlier anticipated advantage about MOOCs. | Specifically, adaptive learning and being able to | accommodate a variety of learning behaviors and styles. | "Learn at your own pace, in your own way, on your own | time but still within bounds to the rest of the class" | kind of thing. | | I remember when Stanford launched online CS courses in | the mid 2010s, that it was thought they'd have the best | of both worlds and their in-person, offline course | offerings wouldn't be affected. (Diluted down to the | lowest common denominator of student, which now included | online learners who weren't Stanford students per se.) | Well, over time, turns out double duty-ing course | material for online and the "regular" classes crept into | all education for instructors. Which meant the courses | with online equivalents became easier across the board. | Thus, the target audience for everything shifted. | | Again, with acknowledged intentionality, I don't really | have an issue with this (which you could crassly | summarize as "dumbing down" the course offerings for | convenience's sake) -- except that from my vantage point | it was an unforeseen consequence of part of the online | and MOOC push. | | Obviously, I benefited from online courses in my mid 20s | and so I look at their rise with nostalgia and through a | rosier lens than many. However, I also can't help but | think that they ended up being not quite what was | promised at the outset, which was better targeting in | addition to expanded educational access around the world. | Especially for students who thought they'd signed up for | the more challenging materials and didn't want to be part | of a grand new experiment. | | Interesting that MIT OpenCourseWare will outlast edX, | which for a few years truly did look like it was the | future of university level education and beyond. | edgeform wrote: | > "This product that isn't aimed at me isn't aimed at | *me*, and that makes me stamp my feet in anger." | | > Sometimes I already have background knowledge that | overlaps with the course content. | | I used to think like you, all the time. "Oh, I already | know this." and while I'm sitting there being all smug | and self-satisfied that I'm the _smartest person in the | room_ I realized: | | * The content is good for a refresher. "Background" | knowledge is just that, you're admitting you want to hear | an expert speak on a subject yet want to throw out what | they have to say because you "already know it from before | this class". | | * The content often provides context. Just like the | "Previously on..." segment of TV shows that will recap | specific plot points so the viewer understands the events | of the new episode they're about to watch, discussing | what you term "prior knowledge" will help contextualize | the new content that you _don 't understand_ properly. | | > Basically, I see no reason online courses can't be | structured to give us more choices about how we want to | consume the content! | | OK, but that's not edX/Corsera's job lol | | They don't have to cater to every single whim of every | type of education personality. It's all well and fine | that you, a multiple degree holder, would love to skip | around content that you find boring/tedious/whatever | while saying you want "someone qualified to teach me who | can filter out what's important and what's not". | | Like it or not, these websites are just simply not aimed | at you, a large-brained Multiple Degree Holder. They're | aimed at people who are behind you in education. | truth_ wrote: | Exactly. When I find overlapping content in MOOCs, it | becomes very annoying. I don't want to miss out a | valuable insight I might gain listening to a different | instructor speaking for a different point-of-view. The | RoI is quite low. But it has happened in the past, so I | don't want to skip overlapping content. So listening to | it while tidying up or cleaning the desk makes sense. | | And for new content, I never watch lectures with other | things. I never did. And I still find 2-4 minutes videos | annoying as hell. | whimsicalism wrote: | > If you're doing dishes you are not taking a college level | course. One of the best things about digital courses is | that you don't have to spend an hour zoning out to a | professor talking | | Strong disagree - as you point out in the next sentence, | slightly distracted is the standard model of consumption | for in person. | squeaky-clean wrote: | What works best for me is to watch the lecture multiple | times with different amounts of intensity/focus. Listening | to a lecture while on a walk or doing other errands is a | fantastic primer for when I rewind the lecture and watch it | again with my pen and notebook in front of me. | | I picked this up from Mortimer J. Adler's "How to Read a | Book". There's lots of other techniques discussed in it, | but the idea of "skim the content first to know what's | coming up, so you have an idea of what each chapter (or | lecture) is building towards" improved my retention | massively and works well for things that aren't just books. | montroser wrote: | As someone who has spent many, many hours deep in the guts of | the edX codebase, this news does not bother me. | | For what it does, the codebase is extremely sprawling, with | layers upon layers of abandoned architectural directions. A lot | of code for not a ton of functionality, and very basic | functionality at that. | | Of course that all is secondary to the actual success it has | found, and good for the the project for making it happen. But, | if this move ends up being a catalyst for investing in | alternatives, that will not make me sad. | willyg123 wrote: | > (highly paid execs...) | | EDX's IRS Form 990 for 2020 shows five executive making over | $800k [1] | | [1] | https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460... | stonogo wrote: | Not bad for an hour a week, eh? | pizza234 wrote: | Coursera and Udemy are two radically different platforms. | | Udemy has a very standard pricing model. You pay what you use | (=courses), so I don't see any way this can significantly | change either way. The teachers are private and not | institutions, so it would likely be unprofitable to adopt a | "significantly-free" freemium model. | | Coursera, Edx and so on apply instead the freemium model, which | could be under theoretical threat (eg. reduce availability of | free material, introduce ads, etc.). However, I've been using | them for a while, and I didn't really experience any impact due | to this supposed monetization orientation - the courses are | still free, and there's no pressure to pay for them. I actually | pay each course. | | To be honest, I'm much more annoyed by the terrible, terrible | UX of their products. There are also certainly some dark | patterns, which I find dishonest, but at the end of the day, | courses are free, and one can take them without interruption. | | A personal note: I actually find negative the association | between well-known institutions and learning platforms. For | example, Harward and EdX- the certificates are stamped as | HarvadX, which is an intentional disassociation. This is fair, | however, customers/students tend to associate prestige with the | MOOC, which is misleading. There's a lot of people around who | think that MOOC certificate have formal value. | porknubbins wrote: | Yes I use Udemy a lot but I never even thought to compare it | to online MOOC platforms. Udemy is great for short how to | series on a particular technology, not for broad academic | topics. | pc86 wrote: | Having a highly paid executive (even multiple) doesn't make a | non-profit "terrible." People deserve to be compensated for | their work and you'll have a hard time arguing that running a | large non-profit successfully isn't challenging, demanding, and | deserving of good compensation. | wpietri wrote: | It isn't necessarily so, but there's a correlation. A lot of | terrible nonprofits are excellent at funneling money to | execs. | | A lot of the work at nonprofits is challenging and demanding. | Everybody deserves good compensation. But as with large for- | profit companies, it's often only executives who get that. | Take a look at CEO compensation over the decades. It has | risen massively compared with worker pay: | https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ | | Maybe CEOs have gotten 940% better at CEOing in the last 40 | years. But I think the more likely answer is executives have | gotten much better at skimming a larger slice of pie. | | One could argue that if investors want to grossly overpay | for-profit execs, that's between the investors and the execs. | But that's definitely not true in not for profits, which get | all sorts of legal and social leeway because they're in | theory doing good for society. | | So yes, it's fair to argue that having very highly paid | executives in a non-profit is terrible. Does that mean execs | who are in it for the money will stick with fleecing | investors? Probably. But I'd say that's better for the | nonprofits, as then they're likely to end up with people who | are there for the mission. | mattferderer wrote: | Unfortunately this is not just a non-profit issue. This is | an everyone issue. | | One popular trending reason is that boards ask an outside | firm what an average CEO makes at a similar size company. | Then they decide to pay them slightly above average if they | like them. Over 40 years this tends to sky rocket the | salary of CEOs to where everyone wants an MBA just so they | can get paid crazy amounts of work compared to what they | put. | | Of course the salary of the CEO doesn't even tell the whole | story when you bring in tax perks of shares vs W-2 wages. | Plus the CEO will probably get many other company "perks". | wpietri wrote: | Oh, sure, I think it's also terrible in for-profit | companies. I think it's a source of vast economic | inefficiency. But the usual excuses for it don't apply at | nonprofits. | narraturgy wrote: | I disagree. It seems unreasonable to hold not-for-profits | to such an extreme ethical standard. They're already | doing charitable work, why must they also be expected to | lead the charge on unrelated social matters besides the | one they chose? | | I agree that executives are paid too much, but I don't | expect a Soup Kitchen to be posting on social media about | how they are fighting against discrimination of purple | elephantfolk in Norway. | mattferderer wrote: | This needs to be said more often! Having worked at & with | many non-profits, if you don't have competitive wages your | top talent keeps leaving. That crushes small non-profits | because top talent wear multiple hats & are very difficult to | replace. Anyone who has had to replace talent knows the pain | of having to hire & then get a new person up to speed. | | As for marketing, spending lots of money on marketing isn't | bad as long as it's working. | | People need to quit judging non-profits just by looking at 2 | numbers without understanding the entire scope. This is a | huge issue for non-profits. | | I know of non-profits that have been forced to setup multiple | entities. One for "public" where they can say 100% of | donations go to the cause & one for people who understand | running a business where they can get private donations that | help pay people salaries, building expenses & everything | else. | murgindrag wrote: | In abstract, no. In practice, in this case, yes. This was an | odd way of channeling money into private pockets of well- | connected people at MIT. | | Anyone know of a good way to reach a good investigative | reporter? | clintonb wrote: | I worked at edX for a few years as an engineer, but left | 3.5 years ago. | | There isn't much of a story here. Of the top 10 officers | listed on page 7 of the 990, only two--Anant and Adam--work | directly for edX. The directors are MIT or Harvard | employees. | | This transfer values edX, Inc. at $800M. Would anyone be | complaining if the board and execs of a for-profit near- | unicorn made $500K-$1M per year? I highly doubt it. | narraturgy wrote: | >highly paid execs, insane amount of money spent on marketing | | I don't understand how not-for-profit orgs are supposed to | succeed when they are constantly hampered by being expected to | pay theirbwmployees low wages and not market themselves or | spread the word because if they spend too much money doing | these things then they are suddenly "bad" organizations. If | not-for-profits are not allowed to compete in the market with | for-profit organizations by offering competitive wages and | utilizing competitive marketing budgets, then it's no wonder | that charity is generally so ineffective. I suspect that the | average armchair marketing executive might not be a good judge | of what an "appropriate" marketing budget is. | wheaties wrote: | The way they structure this is that it continues to be a non- | profit where users have to pay a fee. The non-profit licenses | content and things from 2U at rates that are mutually agreed | upon by all principals. It just so happens that 2U will be | negotiating with itself on what a sustainable fee should be... | mumblemumble wrote: | FUN (https://www.fun-mooc.fr) is another good option that seems | to be keeping it together. I haven't counted, but I think that | most the courses are available in English. | wrycoder wrote: | A quick survey - I see French being used. | mumblemumble wrote: | Hmm. Yes, you are right. | | For what it's worth, the ratio of English language seems to | be higher for the programming MOOCs than it is for most the | other subject areas. | wrycoder wrote: | I bookmarked the site, fwiw! Thanks. | slim wrote: | Thank you for this link | sokoloff wrote: | One of the problems of the current structure (at least as of | five-ish years ago) is that most of the EdX employees are on | the MIT payroll and benefits system (meaning the benefits are | pretty great, but the pay bands are incompatible with competing | [financially] for engineering talent against the actual tech | market). If this breaks that logjam, it could be good for EdX | in this one, small regard. | | Fundamentally though I agree with your summary; I trusted EdX a | lot more _because_ it was tightly affiliated with MIT and | Harvard. Spun out into an arms-length institution, it seems | like it will now be more likely to be driven into the ground by | its leadership at some point in the next 100 years because of | the lack of enough stabilizing "keel" provided by the | affiliation with world-class universities. | sanjiva wrote: | edX has been my go-to recommendation for people in my side of the | world (I live in Sri Lanka) to get quality education at no cost. | This is the end of that - they might have some protections but | its no longer going to be focused on quality content delivered in | a highly learnable manner. | adnmcq999 wrote: | Download or get a textbook and read it yourself + find some | lectures on YouTube with a high rank that you also feel you are | getting something from. This is and always has been the best way | to learn most subjects. | jasonharris555 wrote: | This is also how I do it but I would also like some sort of | computer based tools to help learn. | ibdf wrote: | I agree that you can find resources else where but these | courses have already a structure, have tests and deadlines... | that makes you study! At least for me, a good structure is | essential. | codeisawesome wrote: | So the universities have decided to monetise their own great | reputations by simply selling it to a bidder? | JadeNB wrote: | > So the universities have decided to monetise their own great | reputations by simply selling it to a bidder? | | I think that this is a terrible decision and regret it, but | there's not much surprise: this monetisation of their | reputation is kind of the business of modern universities. | doggodaddo78 wrote: | Well, patents and degrees work that way too. Universities are | businesses first... extracting value from students and faculty. | It's uncool when it becomes the primary focus. | | It's not like Harvard and MIT don't have enough money already, | so it's curious why they need obscenely more. | whimsicalism wrote: | This happened a long time ago with Harvard Extension School. | etempleton wrote: | I suspect it was just not a sustainable program from a revenue | perspective for either school and has the risk to lower the | schools reputation and suck away resources. | | 2U is one of the biggest for-profit higher education companies | and seemingly one of the most successful ones, often partnering | with other colleges and universities. | | I am suspicious of any of the for-profits being able to sustain a | business. Most end up failing because, as it ends up, education | is not very profitable if done correctly. | extra88 wrote: | > I am suspicious of any of the for-profits being able to | sustain a business. | | Blackboard has been around a long time and seems to do okay. | Instructure (makers of Canvas) has done very well. Both sell | Learning Management Systems (LMSes), not educational content | itself. Big textbook publishers, like Pearson, have been | managing incorporating online educational materials. | | But yeah, don't expect a unicorn to come around and "disrupt" | education. | cbozeman wrote: | > But yeah, don't expect a unicorn to come around and | "disrupt" education. | | The easiest way to get a bright-eyed SV entrepreneur to try | to take something on is to tell them, "That industry is non- | disruptable." | whimsicalism wrote: | Well people have been saying that for decades around | education, so my intuition is that this represents decades | of bright-eyed failure. | tehjoker wrote: | The people most in need of education have the least | money. Monetize that. Education is a public good that | requires social subsidy and personal interaction. | whimsicalism wrote: | Monetize not having money? Pray tell your easy solution. | realreality wrote: | Create some sort of entity that hands out money to people | who agree to pay the money back in the future, plus some | percentage interest. | | If anybody figures out how to do this, they could make a | lot of profit. | hogFeast wrote: | I would do some more research on 2u, they do not have a good | reputation (indeed, almost no for-profit education companies | do...the sector is very fashionable because a bunch of Chinese | companies have made tens of billions in this market...but it is | replete with frauds). | switchb4 wrote: | One of the news among many for which I don't give a damn | kobiguru wrote: | I am so happy that NPTEL NOC[1] and NPTEl Lectures [2] and | Swayam[3] exists. These are indian government funded Moocs on | almost everything engineering | | [1] https://nptel.ac.in/noc/noc_course.html [2] | https://nptel.ac.in/course.html [3] | https://swayam.gov.in/explorer | truth_ wrote: | Quality of most of the courses is horrible, and nowhere nearly | comparable to what you get from a Harvard or MIT course. The | professors use very old PowerPoint slides and they themselves | are not interested in teaching. | | Programming problems are dull and boring. | | However, there are exceptions. The Discrete Math course taught | by IIT-Ropar is among the most amazing introductory DM course I | have ever seen- taken in person or online. | | There's also a 40 lecture Japanese course which is also quite | good. | | Indian schools are highly credentialist, so it is worth | checking the backgrounds of the Professors beforehand. Do they | have degrees from abroad? Are they interesting persons? And so | on. | | Only then enroll in an NPTEL course. | xNeil wrote: | Second this. They're genuinely amazing, with IIT professors | teaching their subjects (for engineering). | | It's basically Indian OCW. | Arun2009 wrote: | I have surveyed these, but in general, they simply don't come | anywhere close in quality to that of courses offered by edX. | | An example that readily comes to mind are the courses on | manufacturing processes offered by both MITx and NPTEL. The | MITx course was clearly a class apart - you actually got to see | the processes in question and how they were applied in the real | world factories. When speaking about how a product was made, | the lecturer actually bothered to bring samples of those | products, sometimes dismantled them, and showed us how they | could have been put together. I only audited this a few months | ago, and to this day I remember the concepts vividly. | | On the other hand, in the videos I watched, the NPTEL course | lecturer simply read out from powerpoint slides, which he | prepared from a standard textbook. You were better off reading | the textbook directly than watching the video alternating | between the slides and the lecturer's face. It was a very | uninspiring, depressing experience. | loughnane wrote: | This is a huge bummer. edX was the prime example I would hold up | when people said "remote learning is terrible". Several of the | courses I took on there ranked among some of the best classes | I've ever taken, in-person or otherwise. | | I agree with another commenter in that I had hoped it would | persist since 1) education is ostensibly the business of Harvard | and MIT and 2) Their pockets are deep enough to think long-term. | | I will admit that I haven't used it much in the past few years. | Had been getting turned off by the credential chasing and access | disappearing after some time. | | Tough to see an excellent path forward from here. I've never | heard of this 2U firm. | wrycoder wrote: | _" MIT will continue to offer courses to learners worldwide via | edX, as well as on a new platform now known as MITx Online. | MIT's Office of Digital Learning will build and operate MITx | Online as a new world-facing platform, based on Open edX, that | MIT is creating for MITx MOOCs. | | MIT faculty may choose to continue to offer their courses | through the new edX after the transaction is completed, or move | them to MITx Online."_ | | It's worth reading the article - there is much more that's not | being addressed on HN. | rantwasp wrote: | yeah. edX was stellar compared to other platforms. like really | really good. sad that it's uncertain what is going to happen to | it now | AzzieElbab wrote: | So can I get a bachelor degree in CS/CE for 5k or less purely | online? | ncfausti wrote: | Like others, this worries me. Does anyone know of a platform or | service that backs up quality educational content (think | Coursera, edX, YouTube lectures, etc.) forever, so that its open- | access is not at the whim of a for-profit corporation? | clintonb wrote: | Note that the content belongs to the professors and university | partners, not edX or 2U. | hashhar wrote: | I'm sad that all education endeavours eventually turn for-profit | and then the goals get misaligned. | | Produce as many courses at as minimum cost as possible. Enroll as | many people as possible without regards for completion | percentage. Create an economy where random people are | incentivised to create courses and then the course quality tanks. | | I wish this turns out differently. | | Even Udemy and Coursera have become commericialised with edX the | last major standing. | hatware wrote: | > education endeavours eventually turn for-profit and then the | goals get misaligned. | | There are companies trying to battle the problems that come | with a single bottom line, like Guild Education. | kerkeslager wrote: | I just cannot fathom the worldview that leads one to believe | a for-profit company can solve the problem of for-profit | education. | kerkeslager wrote: | My previous post was a bit too glib, so here's an | explanation: | | There's a common belief on Hacker News which verges on | mental illness, that the best solution to any problem is | free market capitalism. This belief is false because free | market capitalism doesn't solve problems when the customer | isn't the person with the problem. | | The problem in this case is a chicken-and-egg problem: it's | hard to get money without an education, and it's hard to | get an education without money. | | For-profit education _cannot_ solve the problem, because | for-profit education _is_ the problem. If the customer is | the student, then that means people without money can 't be | students. If you start letting people without money be | students, then the customer is someone else, and the | customer's incentives will always be misaligned with the | student's interests in some ways. There simply isn't a way | to fix this which makes any sense and still includes for- | profit education. | Joky wrote: | > The problem in this case is a chicken-and-egg problem: | it's hard to get money without an education, and it's | hard to get an education without money. > For-profit | education cannot solve the problem, because for-profit | education is the problem. | | Have you seen school that only gets paid after you start | working (and based on a percentage of your salary), for | example: https://www.holbertonschool.com I like the | concept in that these school are somehow "investing" in | the student: they only get as successful as the student | is. | rattray wrote: | At least there's still Khan Academy. Very different niche, | though - I sure wish they'd been the new homes of edX's | content... | sokoloff wrote: | Udemy and Coursera were entirely commercial from their start, | were they not? | nosianu wrote: | Originally Coursera only wanted money for the - for the vast | majority of people useless - _verified_ completion | certificate. You had access to all course content including | all the tests and could access course content long after the | course had ended. So if you did not see any value in that " | _verified_ certificate " there was no reason to pay anything. | You got a free certificate either way. | | I saved all certificates I ever got from edX and from | Coursera as PDFs to remember which courses I took. They | actually look quite fancy. | | - Example certificate that was free at the time: | https://i.imgur.com/XFX05gx.png | | - The course was part of a series, which these days is | available here: https://www.coursera.org/specializations/jhu- | data-science#co... | | - Here is an R-Markdown document I created for another of the | courses in that series, which used peer assessment where we | had to evaluate each others results: | https://rpubs.com/Noseshine/74191 | | At the start everything was free, including all these | exercises, all the assessments, and even the certificates. I | knew it would not last and used the opportunity, over three | years of heavy course taking, over 50 completed courses. I | did not have much to spend at the time, I could definitely | not have spend the current amounts. | | I took over a dozen courses on Coursera alone, medicine and | statistics, it was good. I just checked my (long unused) | login just now, they only list two courses under completed | and "forgot" the other well over a dozen others. Good thing I | saved those completion certificates, although there probably | is little use in remembering what courses I took - either I | remember what I learned or I don't. | | . | | Just for fun, this was one of my favorite courses, great | professor too, great content: | https://www.coursera.org/learn/medical-neuroscience Don't | know if it still is as complete, at the time it was almost 25 | hours of videos alone, never mind all the reading and all the | tests and exercises. It wasn't complicated though, you just | had to invest the time but not nearly as much brain as for | other "STEM sciency" courses. | lvs wrote: | > all education endeavours eventually turn for-profit and then | the goals get misaligned. | | I'm fairly certain we've been watching that mission creep in | all corners of education, higher and otherwise, over the past | couple of decades. | whoomp12342 wrote: | fuck completion percentage, it is more than just that. consider | the QUALITY of completion. | | e.g. Did you show up 30% of the time? yer a graduate! | foolmeonce wrote: | I think good goal posts are even further away.. If you | complete 100% of calculus I and then delete all access to it | instead of solidifying it by going to calculus II, you will | need to learn calc I again within months and the cognitive | dissonance that creates will cause most people never to learn | calculus. | jasonharris555 wrote: | Mastery based credentialing is the future. Employers only | care what you actually know and can do. | adolph wrote: | > Employers only care what you actually know and can do. | | That seems to fly in the face of "who you know is more | important that what you know" conventional wisdom. | MR4D wrote: | This makes no sense. They could do a simple transaction | transferring it to a 401c3 entity and be done with it. | | The idea of a public company, a public benefit company, a | university, a nonprofit, and 800 million dollars changing hands | in this complicated of a transaction seems incongruous. | throwawaygh wrote: | Harvard and MIT are selling the right to use their name-marks | in a limited context for $800mm, which they will now invest in | becoming leading institutions in AI teaching/tutoring. They | also get to divest themselves of something that was (perceived | as) cutting-edge and world-changing 20 years ago but is no | longer particularly hot/novel. | | Doing MOOCs was good business for Harvard/MIT like 10-15 years | ago when designing and delivering MOOCs constituted "thought | leadership". Now, MOOCs are ubiquitous and AI teachers are the | hotness. | MR4D wrote: | FTA: " _...2U will transfer $800 million to a nonprofit | organization..._ " | | While that org is led by Harvard and MIT, the institutions | are not getting the money. Which begs the question - why | didn't the edX organization just sell off the IP to 2U? would | have been much cleaner. | neovive wrote: | From 2U's press release [https://2u.com/latest/industry- | redefining-combination/] it's clear that they benefit | significantly from associating themselves with the MIT, Harvard, | and EdX brands. At $800M, I assume they have a well-planned | monetization strategy for EdX. | | My personal experience with EdX over the years is mixed. I | audited a few EdX courses (CS50, Linear Algebra) and generally | enjoyed the quality and pace of the courses, but was never | compelled to purchase a verified certificate since these were | more for leisure. I recall hitting up against the paywall and | losing access to the exams. Although, I understand the need to | monetize, it was a bit demoralizing. | | Overall, I feel EdX helped define massively open online education | and I hope they continue to support this mission in the future. | murgindrag wrote: | Everyone at edX who helped define the future of education left | about a half-decade ago. A third of the staff, including | everyone who cared about learning, poor people, open, or much | of anything else. | | edX was overmonetized. If you want to see corruption on a | grander scale, see where this $800M goes. | streamofdigits wrote: | Will this help the moodle ecosystem? | sriram_sun wrote: | Oh no! Should I start downloading videos? | rossdavidh wrote: | Hypothesis: MIT and Harvard had enough experience in distance | learning by now to realize that it is NOT going to be the wave of | the future in education. They don't want to exactly say this out | loud and take flak for it, so they're just unloading this (for | significant $$) primarily in order to refocus on in-person | education, since they've realized that distance learning has been | around for decades and nothing about the Internet has really made | much difference in how well it works. For a few people, it could | be significant, especially if they are in a remote location and | don't have the option of attending in person, and have an iron | will to remain motivated when not in a school environment. It is | not what most students need, does not give the networking bonus | that is a big part of MIT and Harvard's value, and is not going | to be the future of education. | dgs_sgd wrote: | I don't agree that the Internet hasn't made much difference in | how well distance learning works, but I agree with a weaker | version of your hypothesis applied to educating young people. | An indispensable feature of their university experience is | building personal and professional connections that will last a | lifetime, and that can't be built through distance learning. | | On the other hand, distance learning makes a huge impact on | mature learners. Whether they need to "reskill" to improve | their job prospects, or simply cannot attend a university in | person because they juggle many adult responsibilities, | innovations and improvements in distance learning is extremely | important to them and is beneficial to society. I also think | this group is often ignored/pushed to the side in these | debates. | dentemple wrote: | Seems like an overly negative take. I see no reason not to take | the article at face-value here, namely, that MIT & Harvard saw | the growing gap between for-profit and not-for-profit online | education--and decided to take steps ensure that the latter | doesn't fall behind. | | It's also pointed out in the article that MIT & Harvard will be | investing money into a new non-profit to explore the "next | generation" of online learning, which is literally the opposite | of "[refocusing] on in-person education", as you hypothesize. | nightski wrote: | The problem with MIT's online courses is that while the content | itself was fantastic they refused to treat it like an online | course. They wanted to have it run on a schedule, strict no- | compromising deadlines, and large fees for full access. | | That's fine and all but it's forcing the university model they | know into an online format and it doesn't work so great for the | audience that wants to take online courses imho. | | The value proposition on it's Micro Masters course was that you | could use it for credit at full universities. The problem is it | was extremely unlikely one would get the opportunity to use it | at MIT, and the rest of the partners were universities that I | had never even heard of before. Not necessarily places I'd | probably want to go to further my studies. | martincmartin wrote: | The facts are a little different. | | For the math & physics classes, the deadlines are 3 weeks | after being assigned, whereas when you take the class in | person, there's a strict 1 week deadline. | | Part of the advantage of taking an online class, as opposed | to self study, is the motivating factor of deadlines. I have | a lot of textbooks I've started reading, then said "I'll get | back to this" and never have. | | Another advantage of class over just textbook is discussions | with classmates and TAs. Having a schedule helps with that | too, since there are others working on the same material at | the same time. | nightski wrote: | I do agree, but fortunately having the course online means | one should be able to choose how they learn best. Want to | sign up for a scheduled online class with available TAs? | Neat, now you can pay for that separately. Want to just | consume the material at your leisure and not require any | outside assistance other than maybe a forum? Pay a smaller | fee or even get it for free depending on the needs of the | content creator and get access at any time without | deadlines. | | Personally I have a study friend and we motivate each | other. But we don't necessarily move as fast as MIT's | deadlines because we are professionals with deadlines that | take priority. So it's completely lost on me which is | frustrating because the material is great! | lisper wrote: | To paraphrase Tom Lehrer [1]: education is like a sewer; what | you get out of it depends on what you put into it. This is true | regardless of the medium. Some people will get value out of | distance learning, others won't, just as some people will get | value out of in-person learning and others won't. The only | difference is the cost. Distance learning can be provided for a | lot less money, so you can afford to be less selective on who | you provide it to, and so your failure rates are likely to be | higher. This does not reflect at all on the actual | effectiveness of the process. | | [EDIT] Reference added, because today's youth are apparently | not well-versed in the classics: | | [1] https://youtu.be/w8d0GwzY6cA?t=2210 | ms4720 wrote: | Up vote for user name | inputvolch wrote: | Education is like a sewer? No matter what I put into a sewer, | my guess is that it's going to come out covered in shit. | lisper wrote: | It is an allusion to an old joke. Here is the original | source: https://youtu.be/w8d0GwzY6cA?t=2210 | dkarl wrote: | Maybe the point is that what you get out of it depends a | great deal on what everybody around you puts into it, a | depressing fact that online learning can hopefully mitigate | at least a little bit for people who have access to it. | fullshark wrote: | It's not the future for the elite institutions, why would you | try and saturate the market with degree holders who can claim | they graduated from Harvard/MIT? But it is the future in terms | of replacing third rate degrees that charge too much and return | too little ROI. Maybe they've decided they don't want to | compete in this space anymore given that reality as colleges | shut down, and it's no longer seen as an altruistic endeavor, | but merely a market share war. | [deleted] | acomjean wrote: | I work at Harvard and take classes at the "Extension School" | (Classes are good, and as en employee discounted). A lot of the | classes are "Remote" or "Hybrid", (even before the pandemic). | There have been classes with 40 people with just a handful | showing up physically. Oddly they didn't use EdX as the online | platform for these. It was "Canvas". | itsbenweeks wrote: | I was originally worried at how dishonest seemed to faculty and | TAs who have spent years creating many textbooks' worth of | content for edX. Something akin to MIT Press selling their | catalog to Elsevier or Pearson wouldn't be tolerated by the | faculty. But, in the press release they do mention that MIT | faculty can opt-out and operate in a MIT-only instance & fork of | the Open edX platform: | | _" MIT will continue to offer courses to learners worldwide via | edX, as well as on a new platform now known as MITx Online. MIT's | Office of Digital Learning will build and operate MITx Online as | a new world-facing platform, based on Open edX, that MIT is | creating for MITx MOOCs._ | | _MIT faculty may choose to continue to offer their courses | through the new edX after the transaction is completed, or move | them to MITx Online. "_ | | With that in mind, it seems that Open edX development will be | under a new non-profit held by MIT and Harvard. I hope this new | non-profit will be less at odds with itself in respect to | maintaining openness while creating profitable pay2play courses. | nverno wrote: | MIT is the gold standard of education. Most of their computing | classes already give you full access to all the course | materials, videos, labs, readings, handouts, etc. directly from | the course page. These direct resources are far better than | typical edX/Coursera courses. | | The same is not generally true of Harvard courses (with a few | exceptions like cs50), which hide all materials behind | paywalls. | dragonwriter wrote: | > MIT is the gold standard of education | | A complete tangent, but its somewhat amusing that this idiom | remains popular when the literal gold standard itself is no | longer generally considered a figurative gold standard of | anything. | oceliker wrote: | I didn't know where the term "gold standard" came from up | until a couple of years ago. I thought it simply meant top | standard (and there would be a silver standard, bronze | standard, etc) | nverno wrote: | Orwell says something along the lines of never use outdated | idioms in his Politics and the English Language. I'm | withholding judgement on the extinctioness of this one | until we see how the whole debt bubble plays out though :) | tsjq wrote: | MIT and Harvard did this for 800million? Don't these two | universities have multi hundred billion dollar endowments ? | | Squeezing every single drop of money from every single brick of | the university : great work, MBAs . Slow clap | henvic wrote: | It's a shame how academy ends up being unaccessible for many | people, even though they receive a lot of endowments... while | there are a lot of ways to make them more accessible! | | Like: online courses... or... What about the white elephant in | the room? The cost of social events and Ivy League | athletes/sports. | | I don't have anything against those, but if I were in a | position of power in one academic entity, I'd definitely make | sure sports is not a cost center, as it is today for many. | whimsicalism wrote: | You don't need to do anything regarding Ivy League sports to | be involved with the academy, how is this relevant? | Finnucane wrote: | No, they do not have 'multi-hundred billion dollar endowments'. | Harvard's is around $40 billion, which is a lot, but income | from the endowment only covers about a third of operating | costs. It is all already budgeted for other purposes. Even for | Harvard and MIT, $800 million is a non-trivial amount of money. | colllectorof wrote: | Good. Less cognitive dissonance for me. I can now more | confidently and accurately say that the higher ed in US is dead | and produces little more than fake credentials and political | propaganda. | unethical_ban wrote: | "I am glad that something I perceive as negative occurred, so | that I don't have to be wrong about my assumptions". | colllectorof wrote: | More like "I'm tired of anticipating the inevitable, while | being relentlessly gaslit about its probability". Whether or | not edX is sold to a third party, the underlying problems are | already in the system. It's the effect, not the cause. | doggodaddo78 wrote: | _We have this new, open-source water fountain system that | properly prevents overconsumption and resource depletion. It was | just sold to Chevron for 100 megabucks and they intend to | monetize them... $1 per sip._ | laptop-man wrote: | I have a friend who works for 2u. the bootcamps just pump out bad | devs. everything is taught way to fast, everything is glossed | over, they are expected to learn the majority on the own | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | This ia unfortunate but not altogether surprising. | | I think it can even be deemed benefocial as follows: | | If they manage to increase offering, enrollment and completion by | say 3x, a big chunk of those students may be coming from paid | physical colleges, which means huge savings in education dollars | overall. | | I guess my point is, losing nonprofit edX to paid education is | not a negative if on the whole it chips away at students paying | full sticker price and lowers the overall avg cost of education. | maxFlow wrote: | The key to online learning's sucess is counter to the current | system's goals. What these big-name universities could do to make | online learning go mainstream is lower the barrier to entry by: | i) lowering tuition fees in accordance with mass production | practices and ii) provide real credits and degrees without the | pomp. But both these actions would water down the "good" name of | these legendary institutions (a legend built on exclusion and | cronyism). In other words, they themselves are the ones holding | on-site education as superior, lest the system collapses. No | matter, it's just delaying the inevitable. | pcranaway wrote: | Apparently Bono is into academia now | user_7832 wrote: | I am an assistant and help handle an edX course at a <fairly well | known EU university>, so from my perspective there were a few | things that I thought might be interesting to share (though I am | quite a few hours late to this thread). | | > Nearly 10% of the students have paid for a certificate. I do | not know how much server hosting costs, but given the cost of a | certificate being several tens of Euros, I wouldn't be surprised | if this covered costs (though I'm not aware if the uni gets a | cut). | | > Apparently the main issue with Coursera (which is why our uni | chose edX) was over copyright - edX material remains owned by the | creating uni and not edX itself. I wonder how this will be | impacted by this change. | antoviaque wrote: | Note that the benefits of the sale ($800M) will all go to a non- | profit dedicated to the development of the Open edX project. This | just gave the project one of the largest warchests of any open | source project, and freed it from the sometimes conflicting needs | of monetization edx.org had. | murgindrag wrote: | Author of Open edX left a long time ago due to corruption at | edX / MIT. See commit log for who built the platform. See press | releases for who got the credit. MIT promised all open courses, | all open platform, all open everything. | | The $800M will be used to line the pockets of privileged MIT | professors. It will be as effective at closing equity gaps as | supply-side (trickle-down) economics. 60% will go to overhead, | which will fund faculty clubs and yachts. From there, a ton | will go into generous salaries and benefits packages. And so on | down the line. | | I am willing to bet that this will be equivalent to giving | maybe $10M to an HBCU, in terms of benefits to the poor. | the__alchemist wrote: | Anecdote: MitX's science and math classes (QM, molecular bio, | general bio, materials, Diffeq etc) are outstanding. I wish they | didn't have to move to a paid model for exams etx a few years | back. The classes I tried from other universities on EdX seemed | to be of lower quality. | nobody0 wrote: | I feel pretty disturbing about this. | | One of the determining feature of edX is it is backed by MIT. And | that's also the reason why I trust the platform to give out | information. | | I don't want to be machine learnt on the Internet. | jp0d wrote: | I'm doing my Micromasters in Statistics from MIT on EDX. Enjoying | the amazing content and recognition of certificate. I'm not sure | what this means for enrolled students like me. Is anyone else | doing MicroMaster or similar course from a university and worried | what this means? | | "MIT faculty may choose to continue to offer their courses | through the new edX after the transaction is completed, or move | them to MITx Online." | jrochkind1 wrote: | i had never heard the phrase "micromasters". Wikipedia suggests | it is unique to EdX. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroMasters | Y_Y wrote: | I think it's just a standard use of the prefix "micro-" to | denote something with a value of one-millionth of the | original thing. | ecshafer wrote: | They are basically graduate certificates, which are a normal | university thing. You take 3-5 graduate courses, they give | you a certificate saying that you did this, you give them | money. Not a full blown masters, thus the micromasters | branding, but it can open the door to changing a career or | entering a specialization. | itsbenweeks wrote: | Its even less than that. This micro masters is sold as an | entry point for a full-fledged masters program. The order | of operations is something like: | | 1. Complete the micromasters courses at your speed. | | 2. Get a passing grade in a proctored exam. | | 3. Get accepted to a masters program with 1/2 of your | credits taken care of. | | 4. Finish the masters degree on-campus. | 908B64B197 wrote: | Has anyone actually transferred from a Micro-Master to a | real masters at Harvard/MIT? | jrochkind1 wrote: | i don't know if that's "less" or "more" than a graduate | certificate. Certificates don't usually give you half the | credits toward a masters program at the same university, | do they? | | I can see this being great "marketing" for the university | too though -- once you got the "micromasters", the only | way to get half your credits toward a degree is to go to | the _same_ university that gave you the micromasters (if | you can get accepted, they took your money for the | micromasters without promising that) -- they 've kind of | locked you in. | itsbenweeks wrote: | That fair. I suppose its about the same as a graduate | certificate until you take the extra steps to get a | degree. | estaseuropano wrote: | Micromasters is a trademarked credential. Each of the | different online learning platforms has their own, normally | leaning on/leeching off established and recognised | credentials as in this case the Masters. They could have made | it an entire category, open to use by others and instead | chose to TM it. | dragonwriter wrote: | > i had never heard the phrase "micromasters". Wikipedia | suggests it is unique to EdX. | | Coursera has something similar called MasterTrack; there's | not a generic cross-platform name for it, though if it is | successful for multiple platforms and graduate institutions | that will probably change over time. | ibdf wrote: | I just recently found out about EdX and signed up because even | when paying for the course, you get a good deal. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-29 23:00 UTC)