
A Contrarian View of MITx: What Are We Doing? - r_singh
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/243/flowers.html
======
freyr
MIT had $100M to define new tools, new content, and new directions for
education, leveraging all the advantages of current technology.

They chose an alternative: record some lectures, and put a slew of course
syllabi and homework assignments online. There's nothing necessary _bad_ about
what they did, except that it was completely uninspired and non-
transformative. From a school that has had such a critical role in pushing the
frontiers of technology, it was a disappointment.

A research professor lecturing to a large room of students is an effective way
to teach to a room full of students (well, somewhat effective, as many
research professors are terrible lecturers). Is it the most effective way to
convey concepts in a digital medium? Of course not. It's just a minimal
effort, cost-effective approach.

~~~
nitrogen
I took (and thanks to how great the course materials were, nearly aced) the
first MITx course, 6.002x (circuits). Each lecture sequence had computer-
graded exercises, and they had an online schematic editor and circuit
simulator that was integrated into some of the homework and tests.

I thought that was an adequate use of digital technology to enhance learning,
and I learned significantly more than I did from my failed attempts at taking
introductory electronics in a live lecture setting. The ability to pause,
rewind, and speed up the lectures was priceless.

Have subsequent MITx and edX courses been less impressive?

~~~
karmicthreat
I am currently taking the edX Intro to Linux course. I don't actually need the
course, but since I am self taught I wanted to see if I missed some things.
Popd/pushd come to mind as a feature I've never used.

The course though is rough. I have found frequent spelling and grammar
problems. The English is plain broken in the recorded examples. The
interactive portions don't attempt to emulate a terminal, it is just straight
string matching. Plus, it is amazingly easy even if you are unfamiliar with
Linux.

To contrast this Udacity has made some great interactive learning experiences.
Their python based courses were very good. The only disappointing this is that
they were fairly watered down.

Coursera is in the middle. Some courses are great in the content aspect. Tim
Roughgarden's algorithms course comes to mind. But at the same time they are
usually a rough port of the classroom material with a slight amount of
interactive window dressing.

As I try to pull myself from being a crap programmer to being a good
software/hardware developer I am begging for difficult content. Everyone has a
bunch of lower division courses in various subject available. I want hard
courses that shape my thinking as I try to solve them rather than easy courses
that stroke my ego about how "smart" I am.

Also I really wish Udacity and GIT would have opened their 7000$ masters up to
people that never finished university. Though I probably wouldn't attempt all
the coursework quite yet, I feel shut out of that option. The whole point of
pervasive online learning was to remove barriers and friction to learning. By
having a arbitrary degree requirement it just takes a step back to the old
system that it shouldn't have.

~~~
ghaff
With respect to the Intro to Linux course, I think you probably overestimate
the intended audience. I'm not sure the typical Windows user who has seldom or
never touched a command line would find it "amazingly easy." That said, the
course covers well-plowed land in a pretty pedestrian way. Working through any
of dozens of books on the market would probably suffice just as well for the
motivated learner.

I agree that most MOOCs seem to be rather watered down relative to what I
expect their parent university classes are like. I suspect part of this is
that a lot of both problem sets/projects/etc. and outside reading tend to be
removed. Some of this don't well with the MOOC format. I also suspect there's
a limited appetite for MOOCs requiring many hours of "homework" every week.
They do exist but they seem to be in the minority based on what I've seen.

------
incision
I'm honestly not sure what Prof. Flower's view is here. I feel like I'm
missing a lot of assumed history, context and perspective when I read this.

I've completed several courses through MITx, perhaps half a dozen total
through edX and many more between edX, Coursera and Udacity.

The best content was an all around better experience than anything I've
experienced in my time doing online programs as a adult student at an
accredited university.

The best MOOC courses I've done _are_ highly produced and thoughtful,
particularly relative to the _' Read chapters 8,9,10 and submit these
exercises directly from the painfully written $147 textbook.'_ accredited
courses which I'm paying thousands each year for.

Relative to the state of the typical community college or state university
online experience edX _is_ revolutionary.

Opting for paid certificates of completion via MOOC wherever possible, I've
spent the equivalent of perhaps 1.5 university credits and gained more than
the 30 I've accrued over the past year.

MOOCs as a better and cheaper alternative to the current options for non-
traditional students would seem like a great thing.

Obviously, there's one big issue, the gap between being educated (what you
know) and having an education (what degree you hold).

Working in tech it's easy to forget that the field is pretty unique in valuing
the former on par with if not completely in lieu of the latter. The rest of
the world doesn't operate that way.

As long as MOOC courses are not accredited or otherwise valued by employers
they aren't terribly useful to people who need education most.

~~~
freyr
_> I'm honestly not sure what Prof. Flower's view is here ... The best MOOC
courses I've done are highly produced and thoughtful_

Keep in mind, this article is 2.5 years old. While there were some good MOOCs
at that point, a lot of MITx material was just PDFs of syllabi, homework
assignments, and lecture notes posted online.

And to this day, most MOOCs are just a one-to-one mapping of how the
professors teach their live class. I think Flowers' view is that MITx had the
funding and talent to completely re-think digital education, develop new
tools, and raise the bar. They did not do that. What they did wasn't _bad_ ,
but it wasn't transformative either.

~~~
incision
_> 'I think Flowers' view is that MITx had the funding and talent to
completely re-think digital education, develop new tools, and raise the bar.
They did not do that. What they did wasn't bad, but it wasn't transformative
either.'_

I don't disagree with that.

I don't know if making that sort of criticism with the benefit of hindsight is
entirely fair though?

I'm thinking that to 'completely re-think' anything is always going to be
something of a gamble - with success depending not only on the merits of the
solution but specific timing as well.

It's easy to imagine the people behind OCW and later MITx opting for a 'safe'
approach as opposed to an all or nothing moonshot. Create measurable results
in terms of courses online, visitors and students and iterate from there.

Also, holding up Khan Academy (2006) as what OCW could have or should have
been is questionable considering what most of the web looked like 2001/02 when
OCW launched. Those intervening years were a pretty big deal in web time.

------
samsolomon
The problem with most MOOCs is that they've taken the part of school that
sucks—lectures and homework—and put it online. Inspiration and community are
the best parts of school, and they are nowhere to be found.

~~~
freyr
_> Inspiration and community are the best parts of school, and they are
nowhere to be found._

Yes. Other things not found:

* Program structure

* Incentive for passing your courses (i.e. getting kicked out of school)

* Brand recognition associated with a diploma, to help you land a good job

* Keg parties

* Networking with classmates, alumni, and, if you're lucky, professors, to help you land a good job

For these reasons, and others, MOOCs in their current form don't pose an
immediate threat to colleges.

Still, I think technology could be leveraged to make traditional programs more
efficient.

For instance, university professors serve two functions: they spend most of
their time and effort doing research, then they also have to deliver
calculus/biology/whatever lectures to undergrads. In practice, the overlap
between great researchers and great lecturers is often small. Why not
supplement undergraduate education using canonical lectures from the very best
speakers? I imagine some students are already doing this, by watching Khan
Academy or pulling the lectures from MOOCs that feature better speakers than
their professors.

Also, as tablet/e-reader screens continue to improve, digital textbooks will
likely become more prevalent. There is _so_ much room for improvement of
digital textbooks by abandoning the one-to-one mapping from paper textbooks;
specifically, by using multimedia more effectively and providing interactive
examples. Further, adaptive or interactive problem sets would provide a rich
set of data to identify where students get lost. A/B testing could identify
which presentations are most effective. There's a lot to be done here.

~~~
XorNot
Getting kicked out of school is something we need to replicate? Heck no.

You either have the motovation to learn or you don't, but the point of online
learning is to let people figure that out themselves. We absolutely do not
need some ridiculous system of gating access when we won't need it.

------
flatline
> The “Holy Grail” of true education is exemplified by the professor-doctoral
> student interaction

I have only known a few people who were at all enamored by the PhD process.
Even those who had an overall positive experience speak quite poorly of most
of their student-teacher relationships, which seem to range from adversarial
to abusive. The best professors are heavily overworked and seem to have little
time left for close student interactions. But then all of the people I've
worked with who had PhDs left academia, so perhaps it is a case of selection
bias.

~~~
thearn4
I think I may have lucked out, my advisor was absolutely awesome. But, he only
has 2-3 doctoral students at a time. I know in large programs, some advisors
end up taking on far more than that.

~~~
noblethrasher
I talked to a graduate college dean about this at a conference we both
attended. His assessment is that graduate faculty have abdicated much of their
advising responsibilities to the “process”: course work and comps. He wants to
see more pure research, zero-coursework PhD programs.

At that same conference, another professor mentioned that she was currently
advising 18 students.

~~~
jgamman
no-one 'advises' 18 students... this professor has a successful small business
producing publications with their name on them - this is both sufficient, and
increasingly all, that is required of them in academia. if their reputation is
high enough you can springboard from here into your own academia-small-
business start-up YMMV but you can be sure of the up-front costs!

~~~
noblethrasher
Agreed. In the fields with which I am familiar, professors rarely supervise
much more than that number of graduate students over an entire career.

But, in case of the aforementioned professor, she seemed to deplore having
that many students, and it was her remark about the number of advisees that
prompted the comment from the graduate school dean.

------
r_singh
I've learnt a lot on MITx, and I've also benefitted form other MOOC providers.
But MIT Prof. Flower's views on OCW & MITx are not wrong.

I would love to know what the people here think about MITx, edX (& other MOOC
providers) and how they will affect the future of education.

------
xiaoma
I've gone through dozens of Coursera classes, 2 edX classes, and two full MIT
OCWs. In my experience the OCWs were far superior in terms of actual learning.

A good textbook is actually quite a bit more efficient than Coursera or edX-
style lecture videos. The classes on OCW are more rigorous, the prereqs are
clear and it's all about the learning. There's no certificate, so the only
reason to be there is to learn. Newer MOOCs, on the other hand, are often
watered down. Automated graders on programming classes are great, though.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A good textbook is actually quite a bit more efficient than Coursera or edX-
> style lecture videos.

I'm not sure they are really alternatives -- most Coursera and EdX courses
I've seen have accompanying textbooks or or other assigned readings as part of
the syllabus; very few are lecture-only though some list some or all of the
readings as optional rather than required (particularly the case with non-free
textbooks, though not all courses with non-free textbooks have the readings as
optional.)

Most Coursera and EdX courses seem to be structured like college classes, but
with the function of classroom lecture and discussion sections replaced with
online video and instant-feedback miniquizzes, and the readings still present
as readings. Sure, it'll be less valuable for learning if you just do the
lecture and projects, just like it would be in a traditional college class if
you did that and skipped the readings.

------
ghaff
It's probably worth mentioning as well that Woody Flowers ran the 2.70 course
for many years at MIT (now 2.007) It was one of the key counterweights to an
MIT Mechanical Engineering degree falling completely toward the theoretical
side. So his perspective likely is influenced by the fact that academic theory
courses only go so far.

------
roymurdock
_What are we doing?_

Creating a virtual marketplace for tech/business talent, much in the way the
Bloomberg BAT [1] has created a virtual marketplace to connect individuals and
firms in the finance world.

Create the marketplace and you're guaranteed both a share of the profits from
market-related events (conferences, tuition fees) and an increased brand
awareness. This will only work if you have a good reputation that will attract
both sides of the market: the students (workers) and the firms (employers).
MIT has a great reputation, therefore it can put out basically whatever
content it wants, and it will profit.

Some more thoughts:

1\. A $7,500/year corporate membership gets you: "-Free postings of company
events on the MITX website Events Calendar -Free access to complete contact
information of all members -Free company listing in MITX's comprehensive
searchable online membership directory..."

2\. How much does it cost to record a class, create a couple of self-grading
exercises, reuse old powerpoints and PDFS, and then throw the whole bundle up
online, where it can be used and reused by millions of people? The cost/user
is ridiculously small from MIT's standpoint. Creating in-depth, comprehensive
OCW would raise costs substantially. Yes, the students would benefit, but why
should MIT have vested interests in students who aren't directly enrolled in
the college (besides the whole "education for the good of humanity" argument).
MITx students probably won't provide any returns in the form of fame/alumni
donations.

3\. I don't think this will lower the "prestige once enjoyed by higher
education". Going to Harvard summer camp while in high school really only
signals the ability to pay for such a privilege. The institution doesn't
suffer any loss of reputation and earns cash by licensing out its reputation.
I believe it will be the same for MITx.

[1]
[http://about.bloomberginstitute.com/](http://about.bloomberginstitute.com/)

~~~
freyr
_> 2\. How much does it cost to record a class, create a couple of self-
grading exercises, reuse old powerpoints and PDFS, and then throw the whole
bundle up online_

From the article, "We have spent about $40 million over 10 years."

(I removed the part where I got confused by MITx and MITx.org, thanks
keithwinstein for clearing that up!)

~~~
keithwinstein
Both of you seem to have gotten confused by mitx.org, the "Massachusetts
Innovation & Technology Exchange."

That site is not related to MITx, the MIT MOOC offering. MITx was essentially
renamed edX (after MIT partnered with Harvard) and is here:
[https://www.edx.org/](https://www.edx.org/)

The MIT part (still called MITx) is here:
[https://www.edx.org/school/mitx](https://www.edx.org/school/mitx)

MITx does not have a "$7,500/year corporate membership," etc.

~~~
roymurdock
Ah well that certainly invalidates everything I mentioned above. Perhaps edX
should offer a marketing and branding course.

------
jjindev
I enjoyed this review from 2012, but in 2014 we are past a 2013 "MOOC
backlash" and live in an era where lines are well drawn. There are still some
educators committed to true distance learning, but some also who have circled
the wagons and who decry such "solutionist" thinking.

The really sad thing is that the current battle isn't just about this or that
"poor" offering in the present, it is against the whole effort. Do you have an
idea for a better way to run distance learning? You too are a "solutionist"
and have enemies in place.

------
JDDunn9
Not a lot of specifics on how the author wants to improve the system. Spending
$100 million per course is unrealistic and it's not clear what benefit you get
from that. Higher resolution 3d graphics?

~~~
freyr
One specific example he provides is developing better digital textbooks.
Specifically, digital content that is more than just a PDF version of a paper
textbook. Some options:

* Use multimedia effective (video, animation, sound could all be integrated effectively with the text)

* Interactive examples (see this HN-featured page about Markov models for some nice examples: [http://setosa.io/blog/2014/07/26/markov-chains/index.html](http://setosa.io/blog/2014/07/26/markov-chains/index.html))

* A/B testing to determine the most effective way to teach a concept

* Mine data from interactive problem sets to see where understanding tends to break down, then iterative on the text until you teach those concept effectively

Another specific example he touches on: better video content. Consider that a
lot of MITx's video content was just a recording of a professor lecturing in a
monotone at a blackboard. This is the _least possible effort_ they could have
made. For a specific example of a better way to lecture online, he references
Khan Academy's video. I fully agree. And he points out that not only is this
approach effective, it was also inexpensive to produce.

------
stillsut
kaggle is probably "the MIT" of online learning: \- Competition abounds \-
Those looking to passively absorb will be lost \- To the winners go rewards
and glory!

It's achilles heel is that it doesn't tap collaboration as well as it could.
The future of (elite) online-education belongs to whoever can figure out how
to blend competition and collaboration over the medium's limitations.

