
What You Need to Know About MOOCs - gerasini
http://chronicle.com/article/What-You-Need-to-Know-About/133475/
======
japhyr
I am a high school teacher, and I am quite happy to see the availability of
some of these courses.

I have a student taking the Intermediate Web Development course from Udacity,
and it has had a significant impact on this student. He is learning much more
quickly than he could if I was directing his content, but he is still
benefiting greatly from having me available to answer questions. To be honest,
I am also learning by being exposed to some of what he is doing. For example,
I have not used google app engine myself, but I am getting to see how gae
compares to heroku, which I am more familiar with.

It is also a good introduction to some of what is expected of people in post-
high school education. I definitely intend to steer more students towards some
of these courses.

------
mk3
I have a big problem with edx and coursera courses. As I have a need to work a
day job, sometimes rushed projects come in, and these two platforms are
offering courses with tight schedules. It would be nice if they would adopt
Udacity model, which is more loose. Also the same applies for 10gen education
of mongodb which is also made into tight schedule.

~~~
coroxout
I just finished Udacity's CS101 course and the lack of deadlines was good for
me. I started it months ago and only found time to finish it over my Christmas
break, because just watching the videos took me a whole evening per section,
and then there are quizzes and homework. And that's to someone who wasn't new
to CS but was doing it mainly as an introduction to Python.

I was somewhat surprised, though, to find that the final exam also has no time
limits. I couldn't get one of the 12 exam questions right, but apparently I
can come back at any time I feel like another go at turning that last question
into a green tick. I'm not even sure if there's anything to stop me reading
the "spoiler" forum questions about it first.

The course has been excellent and has some respected names behind it, so I had
thought that the transcripts and certificates offered had some sort of
credibility, but I guess I was wrong expecting my end grade to be any more
credible than how many Codecademy badges I have. (Codecademy is good fun too!)

~~~
mhurron
> I'm not even sure if there's anything to stop me reading the "spoiler" forum
> questions about it first.

There isn't, except your own drive.

> I had thought that the transcripts and certificates offered had some sort of
> credibility

The certificates as they are now are more for your self as a proof of
accomplishment thing. I have heard that they may be moving towards a real
closed exam provided by something like Prometric, like any number of IT
certifications, that would be something that could be pointed to in a more
credible manner.

------
intellegacy
I've just finished Udacity CS101 and am about to finish edX 6.00x (both are
intro to cs courses).

I've done a lot of thought and research into MOOCs and normal CS bachelor's
programs. Initially I was really excited about getting a CS BS for free,
online. The savings would be about $40000 compared with going to my local
state school.

But the luster soon dulled once I realized that it will be some time before
Universities accept MOOC certificates as credit (or never). So my self-study
CS degree is really nothing more than cracking open textbooks and watching
youtube videos as far as an employer is concerned.

We're at a strange impasse where MOOCs are free but are limited by the
weakness of being no-credit, and Universities are outrageously expensive but
provide the value of being for-credit.

Up until a week ago I had signed up for 7 or 8 courses, excited to further my
CS education. I've since decided to cancel them all. Coursera's Data
Structures course doesn't even give you a certificate! Even if you ace the
course you get nada. zip. zilch.

Sorry but that's just too much of a downside for me. If you're going to spend
10 hours a week for 3 months (what's that.. 100-120 hours) you might as well
get credit for it. Sad but that's how this world works. Either University
prices need to be cut in half or MOOC certificates need to count for
something. Something has to give. Until then I will be wary about putting my
time into MOOCs.

The good thing is that with the flood of students to MOOC education, employers
will soon be forced to take note of the courses these MOOC students have
taken. This change in attitude will take some time to effect - 10 years before
significant attitude shift and then 20-30 years before a complete attitude
shift.

I'd rather not wait that long, but I may not have a choice, like many other
people. The strange thing is that it's rational to eschew university and study
MOOCs, but it's also rational to bite the high university tuition costs and
get the degree. It's a very, very interesting time for education.

~~~
ryusage
For what it's worth, in my experience with programming jobs, no one really
cares what your credentials are. Obviously, some places will, but you
absolutely could get a job on skill alone. When I've been involved in hiring,
no one paid much attention to the applicant's school - it was a side note,
followed by the question, "Okay, so what can they actually do?" It's well
known among developers that a lot of people with degrees are actually
worthless, and many self-taught people are amazing.

~~~
tcbawo
It's extremely difficult to judge a software development candidate's abilities
from a short interview. Every company I've worked for has used the
school/degree/GPA as filtering criteria. Otherwise, it would be impossible to
interview every candidate that applies for a job. This is most true for
candidates without experience -- a university degree essentially becomes a
proxy for ability.

~~~
sonabinu
With programming,the self-taught are wonderful. MOOCs are a place for those
with motivation to start their learning journey. The continuity and
application of that learning comes from individual drive.

------
Irregardless
For anyone on HN, a more fitting title would probably be "Everything You
Already Know About Massive Online Open Courses" -- the info is pretty basic.

The most interesting part was the article linked at the top of their timeline:
"The False Promise of the Education Revolution"
[http://chronicle.com/article/The-False-Promise-of-
the/136305...](http://chronicle.com/article/The-False-Promise-of-the/136305/)

------
zeidrich
University is not about learning. Learning tends to be a means to an end to
most people who attend. The end being networking and a diploma. People cheat
all the time to get ahead in University, this is antithetical to learning.

MOOCs are great learning tools. However, they generally don't provide you with
networking or a diploma. You can cheat doing an online, not-for-credit course,
but that undermines the only benefit you get from it.

I personally think that they are great, because I can afford to value learning
more than certification. However, if what you are looking for is a way to
prove you're an ideal employee, I don't know if they can ever take the place
of the social benefits of a flesh-based university.

I think that the discrepancy comes from the idea that University student's
goal is to learn, and a University's goal is to teach. It's not. A student's
goal is to get a degree and meet smart people (while learning). A University's
goal is to make relationships with smart and influential people and secure
funding (while teaching). The quality of teaching is a measure of prestige
which attracts the smart and influential people: The cost of tuition is a
filter to try and discourage any but the wealthiest (this more influential)
students. The existence of scholarships are to make exceptions for the
smartest students.

If you want to simply learn a subject, you have a lot of opportunities outside
of a University degree structure. Auditing courses, Online courses, Self-
study, work experience, non-university teaching, etc. But if you were to ask a
typical university student if they would give up the possibility of earning a
bachelor's degree, however they could go to school and not pay tuition but not
be allowed to use University facilities outside of attending lectures, I'd
wager most would turn you down.

------
gerasini
In my view, MOOCs are really revolutionizing education because they provide
options for smart willing people that are locationally or financially
disadvantaged to learn from top tier professors/institutions.

~~~
jupiterjaz
This is right. The best thing MOOCs have going for them are their prices. And
it gets more compelling every year as traditional universities continue to
price more and more students out of the market.

~~~
michaelochurch
A lot of people use MOOCs at work. Even though some companies offer tuition
reimbursement, it's usually partial and very few companies allot working time
for coursework, and most working professionals are more time-poor than cash-
poor. With MOOCs, people can usually sneak away 1-2+ hours per day on
education and no one needs to know.

More: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/moocs-
disrupt...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/moocs-disrupting-
work/)

------
sonabinu
I've been using MOOCs to supplement my coursework for over a year now. Here's
my experience [http://datagrad.blogspot.com/2012/11/using-moocs-while-in-
gr...](http://datagrad.blogspot.com/2012/11/using-moocs-while-in-grad-
school.html?m=1)

~~~
mikevm
That page is terrible. I'm zooming in but the font size stays the same.

~~~
sonabinu
Thanks for the feedback. I've changed the font settings, hope that helps.

------
nlh
Slightly off topic - sorry.

Whoever coined the acronym MOOC is clearly not from the NYC area or has not
heard the term "mook", which is all I see when I read this article.

<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mook>

This is an acronym that should be killed quickly.

Maybe something like MMOE (Massive Multiuser Online Education)? Or MOOE
(Massive Open Online Education) or OEOE (Open Enrollment Online Education)....

~~~
intellegacy
This is the first time I have heard any complaints about the acronym. Not that
I particularly like it myself, but I don't think it's a big deal. The world
does not revolve around NYC.

------
chatmasta
I'm in my third year as an undergrad at Yale. I have to say, all the talk of
MOOCs "disrupting higher education" is a bit misleading. Top universities are
not going anywhere, nor is their prestige. If that were the case, why would
MIT/Harvard/Stanford/Yale publish their courses in this manner? They wouldn't.

The reason top universities are not only willing to publicly release their
courses, but _competing_ with each other to do so, is simple. The mission of
these universities is to educate. Publishing courses as MOOCs accomplishes
enables that mission. It also has the added benefit of creating publicity for
the school.

To say that MOOCs are "disrupting higher education" implies that the
universities are commoditizing their education. They are not. They are
commoditizing the _academic_ portion of their education. In my experience at
Yale, the academic portion of my education has accounted for no more than 10%
of it. Academics are not what universities are in the business of teaching.
That's why you can't replace a university education with a set of online
courses.

My daily life consists of no more than 2 hours of class. Yet I wake up at 9
and go to bed at 12. That's 13/15 hours in the day NOT spent in class. During
that time is when I'm reaping the benefits of a Yale education. They are
largely intangible, but very obvious in retrospect. They are skills for
navigating through life. Yale teaches you strong social skills, encourages you
to step outside your comfort zone, introduces you to what can only be
described as an absurd network of people, and how to manage all of that in the
course of a day. I've learned more about myself the past three years than I
ever could have through online courses. And THAT is why MOOCs will never
disrupt the traditional higher education system.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Yale, Harvard, and MIT don't need to worry (for now, anyway). The universities
that need to worry are the Southeast Directional States, particularly the ones
that try to do undergraduate education on the cheap. A MOOC isn't really that
much different from a lecture class with 1,000 students. In both cases, your
interaction with the professor is going to be minimal.

~~~
chii
> The universities that need to worry are ... particularly the ones that try
> to do undergraduate education on the cheap.

this is a good thing - bad universities that suck up money should be replaced
with "free" ones that perform a better job.

------
jmcqk6
There is something very interesting to me about the rise of these courses.
Everyone I've heard is expecting the jobs of the future to require higher
order thinking skills: creativity, analytics, etc. Another way to put it would
be thing that are on the higher end of [Bloom's
Taxonomy](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blooms_Taxonomy>)

On the other hand, these courses are aimed at the opposite end of the
taxonomy: remembering, recalling, etc. There are a few conclusions I can draw
from this:

1) There is an upper limit on the possible effectiveness of purely technology
driven education.

2) That ceiling will remain in place until there is an proven method of
scaling up assessment of creativity and other higher order skills.

3) If you can solve 2, you're going to be very, very rich.

~~~
Mvandenbergh
I think that by their nature, things like creativity are not easily assessed
in a fast standardised way. These skills are usually assessed by their
application - if someone produces good creative and analytical work then I can
count on them having those skills. That's why artists have portfolios and
hackers have GitHub accounts, right? Of course the issue is that hiring people
with those skills is harder because you can't screen them so easily - it
requires people with skills equal to or greater than the applicant to spend
considerable time evaluating their work product. That costs a lot more than
just giving HR a minimum GPA for graduate hires.

~~~
chii
so instead of hiring an employee, you should be putting out RFP (request for
proposals), which outlines what you want produced (creative things, a film, a
game, or an application for your business). You also show your budget, and you
ought to get proposals, and you pick the "best" one.

------
jamessun
I really like how The Chronicle has organized this web page about MOOCs by (a)
using the timeline as the central way of ordering content and (b) providing an
overview/FAQ about MOOCs on the left.

~~~
ph0rque
Same here... anyone know of a rails engine/plugin that will do that for your
e.g. blog posts?

------
nitins
I have done CS101 program in python @ Udacity. It was really good.

~~~
sonabinu
Same here

------
michaelochurch
For my parents' generation, the way you showed ambition and competence at work
was, after you finished your assigned stuff, to go to your boss and ask for
more. If you were good, you were always asking for more things to do. This was
inefficient, because it usually meant you were putting 100% CPU into grunt
work for 4 years, and if the company turned on you and fired you mid-climb,
you would have gained no real skills in that time.

Ambitious people don't do that anymore. They don't give their surplus time
back to the boss and ask for more work. It's the mediocre, clueless ones who
do that. The ambitious people use surplus time to learn the skills that will
help them advance. Having a Library of Alexandria at every desk means that
ambitious people can get a high-quality education and no one has to know.

I don't believe that MOOCs will obsolete the traditional liberal arts
education, which is about a lot more than lecture, but MOOCs are another step,
and a powerful one, in bringing through this transition in the workplace. More
on this: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/moocs-
disrupt...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/moocs-disrupting-
work/)

~~~
mhurron
> bringing through this transition in the workplace

God I hope not. I hope that we can as a society, move beyond the idea that if
it doesn't have an application in the workplace or if you can't make money
from it, it is not worth while. There is no real difference to asking for more
grunt work and spending your free time to be able to do different grunt work
for someone else somewhere down the line.

I do Udacity and Coursera courses for my self, for my own benefit. I'm a
system administrator. I do programming courses for fun, I'm doing Introduction
to Astronomy for fun. The astronomy won't help in my job, ever. The vast
majority of the programming ones, though tangentially related to my job, by
and large won't help there either. It doesn't matter, I didn't do them to be a
better worker. I did them to enrich myself.

Work, your job, is something you do to enable you to enjoy life. Don't make it
your life.

~~~
michaelochurch
I am with you most of the way on this.

However, work is a fact of life. It can be enjoyable, or it can be drudgery.
Generally, the more skills you have, the more leverage you have to push it
toward the "enjoyable" end of the spectrum. If I'm going to be spending 45
hours, or even 20 hours, per week on something, I'd rather push the situation
to one in which I can enjoy that time and have some autonomy. I don't mind
working hard, but I don't like being subordinate, and that's what happens when
you have no leverage.

Much of what inspires me to study advanced CS at 5:30 am is workplace-agnostic
intellectual interest, but part of it is also the intention of qualifying
myself for much better work than what I've been doing for the past few years.

I also think that there's an defeatist attitude that a lot of people take that
Work Sucks because, in most jobs, it does. It doesn't have to be that way,
though, and if the disproportionate leverage held by top-tier technologists
continues to grow, we'll be able to build a dramatically better world-- one in
which most people will be able to work 500 hours (or less) per year instead of
2000, and have 1500 more to enjoy.

If Work is going to be with us for the near future, we might as well do what
we can to improve it.

