
Why Professors at San Jose State Won't Use a Harvard Professor's MOOC - ilamont
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Professors-at-San-Jose/138941/?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
======
Jun8
I read the original open letter and think that there's quite a bit of
misleading and FUDding, of course, masterfully done coming from a philosophy
prof. I approach this from a different angle:

"We believe the purchasing of online and blended courses is not driven by
concerns about pedagogy, but by an effort to restructure the U.S. university
system in general ..."

I agree with him completely here, a large part of this discussion is not about
pedagogy but is financially driven. However, unlike him, I think this is a
good thing at a time where many universities are battling high costs and
students loans have reached record high levels.

The problem with his main argument (and with similar arguments about teacher
ratings, etc.) is that it pits the best possible case against the proposed
idea in trying to refute it: Isn't having an excellent prof/teacher in flesh
and blood who cares about your education better than some canned video? Well,
obviously it is, but the point is a lot of professors/teachers are _not_ like
that, they, like everything else, have a distribution of excellence.

If we rephrase the argument as: Isn't having lecture videos of good faculty
preferable to having an underpaid, uncaring professor/teacher or the option of
canceling that course because the university cannot afford it? This is the
question that Prof. Hadreas needs to answer, I think.

~~~
glesica
I agree with your general sentiments, but, and you are certainly not alone in
this, you glossed over the financial issues facing universities. In many
cases, the budget issues facing universities are not all endogenous,
unavoidable problems.

I think a better strategy would be to figure out why, exactly, universities
are so strapped for cash (I've worked in higher education, it isn't a simple
issue) and target those issues instead.

This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed
out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by
budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse,
education.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you
pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced
by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse,
education._

Why do you believe that worse but cheaper education wouldn't provide a better
value to students?

~~~
glesica
I see your point. I was thinking (though I didn't state it explicitly,
apologies) of "worse" to mean "worse value". For instance, reducing the
quality by, say 10%, but reducing the price by 50% would probably be a good
value for many students, I agree with that. My concern is that the quality
would drop "more" than the price.

This concern is partially motivated by my background. I used to work for a
university doing academic technology-related stuff. In my opinion, many of the
technologies that were being acquired didn't contribute much to the quality of
the education offered (beyond looking sexy when prospective students came in
for tours). However, the tech was often extremely expensive and, in fact,
required additional fees in many cases.

------
larsberg
One of the former chairs of our department (CS at the University of Chicago)
has a saying, "all curriculum reforms initially succeed."

So I'm not surprised that the pilot program had great pass rates, as pilot
programs are usually staffed by eager people with amazing support networks who
are interested in putting in the time to make it work. It'll be more
interesting if SJSU does ramp up their experiments to start to include
professors or lecturers who are just fulfilling their service requirements and
seeing what the difference is between student performance under those faculty
and the prior model.

~~~
jaibot
In all fairness, undergrad CS at UChicago has gotten way more awesome in the
last few years. There wasn't even an active ACM on campus.

------
wjnc
We can separate the debate in a few distinct classes:

1\. Superstar class - Excellent researcher and excellent teacher - A good MOOC
is not a threat but an opportunity for you to bring even more understanding to
your students. Or the superstar hosts his own MOOC.

2\. I'd rather do research class - Excellent researcher, but not excellent
teacher - A good MOOC is not a threat but an opportunity for you to spend less
time teaching, while you can still focus on teaching about your own research
as a plus. Or only teach MS and PhD-level courses, where the market in courses
would be too specialised for MOOCs.

3\. I'd rather teach class - Not excellent researcher, but excellent teacher -
A good MOOC is not a threat but an opportunity for you to get extra and world-
class material to your students, while leveraging your teaching skills for
that personal touch.

4\. I'd rather just do nothing - Not an excellent researcher, but not an
excellent teacher either - A good MOOC is a big threat to your business model.
You won't cut it research-wise, so your in the C-league of universities, but
the MOOC will make your failings as a teacher a lot more obvious. A good class
is just a few mouse clicks away for students, and why pay if you can get it
for free?

Of course there is a signalling effect at work as well. But I find it hard to
imagine you would get much signalling from a school filled with class-4
teachers. Both you and your future employers know what universities and
colleges are class-4.

The future that Peter J. Hadreas deplores is the one where class-4 disappears
and "cheap" education is met by class-3 educators. It's a background fight
IMHO. And one where students are the winners. The best students still get to
go to the best universities. But all the other students at least get lectured
by the best teachers, and get taught by enthusiastic teachers instead of bored
B-level researchers.

------
jcnnghm
Educators are going to need to deliver in-person value in excess of their
cost. The writing is on the wall, there is no technological limitation
preventing world-class instructors from teaching everyone. This will
doubtlessly be the first of many attempts by the entrenched to prevent this
superior education from becoming the norm, out of fear they can't actually
deliver real value aside from presenting slides.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
There is a limitation: questions and answers. The place professors will have
value is in direct student communication.

~~~
jcnnghm
Certainly that's the new value prop, but wasn't a lot of that previously
handled by teaching assistants?

Personally, I think the Udacity "continuous Socratic method" approach is
better than traditional lectures because it forces constant thought and
engagement.

~~~
calinet6
It's still on a computer. I don't think it's a replacement. Not even close.

~~~
jerf
It sounds like you're begging the question (in the "correct" sense, not the
modern vernacular sense). Computer education can't be as good as non-computer
education, so therefore computer education isn't as good.

------
alan_cx
Speaking for my self, a UK student 14 ish years ago doing Computer Science...

I found lectures mostly a waste of time. What I found was that the lecturers
were simply presenting the latest chapter from the prescribed text book. So, I
ended up reading the chapter the night before and just used the lecture as
confirmation of what I thought I had learned by reading. Very occasionally I
used the lecture to ask some question, but that was rare. By Year 2, I barely
went to lectures and simply studied at home, handed in the required work, then
did the exams.

Now, I fully accept that what I did does not suit all, in fact I am happy to
be considered a minority case, but, and here is the point I'm waffling
towards, I did have to question the true value of actual lecturers if all they
did was present chapters of a text book. A video on-line might well have been
better.

Another thing I ended up questioning was the length of the degree course. It
could have been very easily done in 2 years, if not less.

~~~
tjr
Some lecturers are truly outstanding, and a joy to listen to. I went to a
small undergraduate college, with small class sizes and many passionate,
engaging professors, where classes were a mixture of lecture and discussion.

But a straight up lecture? I'd rather read a book. And really, even with good
lecturers, most of my real learning comes from applying the knowledge somehow:
writing computer programs, writing essays, etc.

~~~
patrissimo76
I also went to a small undergraduate college, with small class sizes and many
passionate, engaging professors, where classes were a mixture of lecture and
discussion. And half of the classes still bored the crap out of me.

Even with a great teacher, the speed at which the material is presented is
never going to match each person's learning flow. Too slow for things they get
instantly, too fast for concepts they have trouble with, and everyone is
different.

And even debate in a small class is inefficient. Contrast a debate in a
20-person class with a debate in the HN comment threads. The class will
sometimes be focused on a thread I'm not interested in. Sometimes I will want
to chime in, but others are holding the floor. Time is a scarce resource and
20 students are contesting it. On HN, we can all read and comment
simultaneously. No downtime.

~~~
tjr
I'm sorry you had such a worthless experience. What learning methods seem to
work best for you?

------
mcpherrinm
I'm sure the acronym MOOC is obvious to those in the area, but I wasn't sure
what it stood for, and it seems sloppy to me that it wasn't defined in the
article.

All it takes is writing "Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)" the first time it
was used.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I completely agree, but The Chronicle is _the_ higher ed trade magazine. It
may be like I saying MMO in a gamer magazine or TDD in a developer's blog.

------
tlrobinson
My first thought was this was another case of the "old guard" being afraid of
change, but I read their letter and I actually agree with some of their
points.

The obvious downside is the lack of interaction with the lecturing professor.

This was another point I hadn't thought of:

 _"The thought of the exact same social justice course being taught in various
philosophy departments across the country is downright scary - something out
of a dystopian novel"_

[https://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-
Letter/13...](https://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-
Letter/138937/)

MOOCs are great for low cost and continuing education. I'm doing one right
now, but it feels very lacking compared to my college experience, and I keep
wondering how it's integrated in "real" courses.

~~~
darkarmani
> "The thought of the exact same social justice course being taught in various
> philosophy departments across the country is downright scary"

Which is why every professor writes their own books, right? It's be scary if
lots of people across the country were learning from the same textbooks.

~~~
civilian
Almost every child is taught algebra. The methods may very but the end result
is the same. We are forcing children as young as 9 to learn a doctrine
originating from Islam! What dystopian world are we living in?!?!?!

------
adelevie
At the risk of setting up false dichotomies, I wonder:

Will a MOOC instructor answer my emails, take a phone call, or meet with me in
person?

Will a MOOC instructor help me network with potential employers and internship
sponsors?

Will a MOOC instructor be my mentor and help me navigate an increasingly
difficult job market?

Will a MOOC instructor connect me to other like-minded students and
professors?

Will a MOOC instructor act as an advisor for any interest groups or clubs at
my school?

Will a MOOC instructor know who I am?

~~~
StavrosK
No. That's why the course is free.

I, for one, have gotten way more than my money's worth from Coursera classes.
They have been amazingly educational and terribly useful.

~~~
B-Con
Since you paid nothing, I'm not sure how strong of a praise that is. ;-)

Personally, I'd say I got my time's worth. Time is worth a lot, and I've put a
lot into the classes, and I feel it has all been more than worthwhile.

~~~
StavrosK
I knew someone was going to say that :P I did get my time's worth back in
multiples.

------
riggins
I have a ton of sympathy for the professors. You've certainly have put in a
lot of work to become a professor, studied your whole life, and then out of
the blue you're potentially obsolete.

The article kind of bugged me simply because the professors didn't admit any
self-interest. Everything was posed in terms of altruistic concern for their
student's well being. I kind of doubt that's the case. While they may have
some concern for the students, I'm inclined to believe their motivations are
driven primarily by self-interest (which is totally normal but less
admirable).

------
willholloway
The coming widespread adoption of MOOCs is another great example of what Jaron
Lanier calls Mass Unemployment Events. Driverless cars will be another.

Together we trudge on towards a future requiring a basic minimum income.

~~~
jdreaver
Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the
horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual
copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose
their job, etc.

(Funny story: I have a professor that was in the Center of Mass group for
NASA, where they painstakingly calculated the center of mass of each object
and part of the shuttle, then computed the center of mass for the whole
shuttle. Of course, a computer can do that instantly now.)

I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech comes
around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of life? Plus,
it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the wall, and
in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will probably take at
least a decade.

History has shown that improvements in technology increase the standard of
living across the board for all classes. A minimum basic income will hurt us
in this instance because people will not have an incentive to have jobs that
actually produce value to others.

~~~
willholloway
> Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the
> horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual
> copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose
> their job, etc.

Transportation advances caused great economic difficulties from 1870-1890 [1]

What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates
and new mass employment industries are not created?

> I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech
> comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of
> life?

I would say a basic minimum income would be investing in defense against
violent revolutions. At some point people will just revolt if they are starved
or even lack upward mobility.

> Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the
> wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will
> probably take at least a decade.

There are long ramp up times for retraining and educating people. And I don't
think education is going to be enough.

I think the most radical and unpalatable truth is that a huge segment of
humans are just not going to be intelligent enough to provide value in the
coming robot and machine intelligence run economy.

Our brains and memories could be so much greater, and we should engineer
ourselves with all deliberate speed.

Humans have to upgrade themselves before they are obsolete.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation>

~~~
NotOscarWilde
> What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates
> and new mass employment industries are not created?

I would not invest too much time into speculative futurology at this point.

I mean, if somebody brings data, we can talk about those. Without that data, I
don't think anyone can predict correctly whether we will end up in

a) a dystopia with most people not being able to find work and starving or

b) a utopia where the cost of life is so low that anyone can live fully
without even working.

------
ajdecon
The actual "open letter" sent by the SJSU philosophy department:
[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-
Letter/138...](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-
Letter/138937/)

------
rabid_fish
For me it all comes down to class size. If you are in a philosophy class with
more than 15 students, how can it be said that one is having consistent and
meaningful 2 way interaction with the other students and the teacher? It's
simply not possible.

To the prof's who think lecturing to a class of >15 students is teaching them
in a way that is different from what the students can get thru video, I say
you're fooling yourselves. And you know this to be true.

What's beautiful about where this is headed is a) it's inevitable, and b) it
will lead to a better education experience. How can it not be of benefit if
the 100-level mundane subject matter is handled via video (with perhaps a
teacher being available for questions and tutoring), and have the higher level
courses be of smaller class size with mostly in-person teaching? We could
probably prune some of the teaching staff and still deliver a better
experience.

------
kyllo
Maybe this is a sign that we need to further bifurcate undergraduate &
professional education from research. The two functions are not necessarily
related, nor do they need to be performed by the same person. Undergrads need
more education and training at a lower cost, and technology is the way to
achieve that. The current university system is unsustainable because
technology is threatening it, it's unsustainable because few can actually
afford it anymore. MOOCs aren't threatening social justice, they are creating
it, by making the curricula available outside of the ivory tower. MOOCs aren't
for current university students, they're for anyone with an internet
connection and a desire to learn. Who cares if it's not quite up to the
quality standards of a university course because of the lack of personal
interaction? It's free to access, what could be more democratic than that?

------
jeffdavis
I wonder what effect online education will have on the diversity of thought?

Before, I was mostly thinking that online education is good for things with
well-established and fairly uniform curricula (e.g. many math, science, and
engineering courses). But it really struck me that the class in question was
called "Justice". To think that we'd just have a few notable professors
writing the curriculum for such a broad and subjective course is disturbing.

------
calinet6
Hear hear! Finally some rebellion. I'll save the analysis for later, but this
in general is an encouraging response. MOOCs might enable certain extensions
of learning when it's not possible or desirable (financially or otherwise) to
have access to real teaching, but they should not and hopefully will never
replace or even _claim to replace_ real universities with real professors.

Reduction of education to simple learning of facts and information will drive
the world into the ground. It has certainly already begun, as have the
results. What we need is more generalized, humanist, liberal arts and sciences
education, not less. I swear to you if I have to work with one more one-track
single-minded robot programmer I'm going to start cursing.

For pete's sake, get some breadth and human contact—the only way to a true
education. I want to see more of this type of response to MOOCs, and frankly,
I wouldn't care if the entire concept was forcibly rejected from society. That
would be a start.

------
46Bit
> The letter is part of a brewing debate about how MOOCs might deepen the
> divide between wealthy universities, which produce MOOCs, and less wealthy
> ones, which buy licenses to use those MOOCs from providers like edX.

Why are only top universities producing MOOCs anyway? Do San Jose lack any
renowned classes, or just the will to MOOCify them?

~~~
wmf
Why would you buy a MOOC from anywhere but a top university? MOOCs will bring
winner-take-all economics to higher ed.

------
huherto
It is great that you posted this here. This is a big discussion that we will
have in the following years.Obviously we have to find the right model for
public universities. Clearly the MOOC classes can provide a lot of benefits.
But we also want to keep good professors in College.

I personally think that MOOCs should supplement the lectures and professors
should focus on directing discussions in class, solving problems, directing
projects, making sure no one is left behind, providing his own view and
experience.

------
knowtheory
This is a perfect example of failing to understand the open source mindset.

MOOC's are two things, a curriculum and a means of teaching. If either of
those are subpar, you can both evaluate that, and/or make a case for why they
are detrimental. Aside from that, these are just tools and pieces of content.
It's not an existential threat to professors any more than Wordpress is an
existential threat to web developers, and certainly not a threat to content
publishers.

------
jskonhovd
MOOCs give me the ability to continue my education without doing into debt and
delay having a family. Education should be free. San Jose State is probably a
better school than where I got my degree, but I don't believe for a second
that every class is taught by a caring well paid professor. They use TAs,
Graduate Assistants, and over worked nontenured visiting professors just like
any other cashed strapped University.

------
mjlangiii
"Professors who care about public education should not produce products that
will replace professors, dismantle departments, and provide a diminished
education for students in public universities."

This last sentence frames the discussion perfectly, and I agree with its
sentiment but not the unnecessarily gloomy warning to other professors. An
MOOC is a tool in the toolbox and can be used or abused. The sentiment is to
not abuse this tool. The warning is to not make poor tools but is stated in an
underhanded way that could derail a very healthy discussion. MOOC's have
unfathomable potential as a tool for educating people in a much larger circle
than rich students attending a "high quality" university and that context
should not be covered up when it does not favor your rhetoric. So I am glad to
hear his warnings and hope others heed them. But I also hope people continue
to improve this tool in the educational tool-box. There, I fixed the last
sentence of the open letter.

"Professors who care about education should strive to produce products that
enhance education for students in public universities and students
everywhere."

------
jdreaver
I say we let the market decide. People like me who much prefer MOOCs to brick-
and-mortar universities will gladly stop paying tuition, and people who value
traditional universities can support them. Surely, the number of traditional
universities will decrease, but it isn't inconceivable that they survive with
a better learning model than the lecture-test model that has been around for
centuries.

------
chiph
Some professors are taking the availability of MOOC material to invert their
time. Rather than everyone spending time listening to a lecture, they assign
the online lecture as homework, and then use class time to answer questions,
work problem-sets, and address items that weren't included in the MOOC.

------
_halcyon_
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

These San Jose professor are simply trying to fight inevitable disruption of
the current university system, which is simply broken.

------
jpdoctor
> "Let's not kid ourselves; administrators at the CSU are beginning a process
> of replacing faculty with cheap online education."

Sounds about right. Salaries are the number 1 expense, so it's a great place
to cut.

------
wfunction
> provide a diminished education for students in public universities

That sentence makes no sense.

UC Berkeley produces edX content, and it's a public university.

