One thing that's not mentioned here that seems apparent to me is that universities are social environments in a way that MOOCS are not. In my opinion humans generally adapt to the social environment they find themselves in so if you are a full time student at a MOOC you are in a very different social environment (home) that may be much less conducive to learning.
Money shot: "It’s that economically, colleges don’t derive their value from providing you something you could get for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library." (many PLs now fine-free, tho).
Omg this made me want to watch Good Will Hunting so badly. AND everything about it appealed to my lower middle class half Irish FU rich fucks attitude. By the end I was like https://tenor.com/bQuZe.gif and looking into Pomona College merch. But then I realized I'm currently going to a community college so I should just buy my community merch.
Terrific article, as always, Dan! I wish we could be more honest that our system of elite higher education is often as much about signaling one’s IQ and networking with other elites as it is about the actual education. In fact, as I said in my post (thank you so much for the shout-out!), in Europe the vast majority of post-secondary education happens outside the classroom, in apprenticeships and on-the-job training. This is the case even for careers like nursing, accounting, and financial advising.
And this last point gets to one reason I think MOOCs haven’t taken over. The vast, vast majority of people learn actively and by working collaboratively. We are a social species, and we learn by observing others, by trying things out, and by responding to feedback. Tech bros in Silicon Valley--the very people who were so gung ho about MOOCs--are probably among the very unusual people who are able to learn a topic by passively listening to an online lecture and working through problem sets on their own. Even Sal Khan intended his Khan Academy videos to be followed up with interactive classroom work. It’s yet another example of the phenomenon where people who are pushing a reform belong to a highly unusual group and don’t understand that ideas that work for them won’t work for most people.
Great post, thanks! I remember the promise of MOOCs and the subsequent fizzle. Higher ed is absolutely due for disruption. But it's clear MOOCs aren't the way to do it. Part of the problem is probably that higher ed wasn't designed to be for everyone. It was designed for the wealthy and powerful. Perhaps this is an example of the "dead hand of history" maintaining broken systems.
Personally, I think higher ed should be for everyone -- and I think it's very possible. It's being done everyday. (I teach at a community college in the CUNY system, so I'm biased.) I think there's a slow social recognition of cc's value. They are way more affordable than 4 years and the education a person can get there is often just as good. I'll get off my soapbox now.
As for the rest of higher ed: my sense is that over time the middle will fall out -- with lots of middle-tier schools closing (many already have) and we'll be left with the elite schools and public schools, inncluding cc's.
I really wish IQ or other g-loaded tests were more popular for employment. Could replace a lot of bullshit. I work in data analytics, and it's not clear to me that these data courses offer much. Anyone can look up the relevant algorithms in an hour and copy/paste Stack Overflow code. The real skill comes in knowing when to use them, how to present them, and what business problems to focus on.
I've worked with people who can copy/paste code that gets them 80% of the way, but can't wrap their head around how to alter that last 20% to make it for their needs. I've also worked with people that are like "I learned a new programming language to solve this problem." There's no course, online or in-person, that's going to turn someone from the first type of person to the second. I would know, because I've tried to.
There's value to hard-work and experience, of course, but I think we've oversold it. There's a lot more value to just being smart.
One thing that's not mentioned here that seems apparent to me is that universities are social environments in a way that MOOCS are not. In my opinion humans generally adapt to the social environment they find themselves in so if you are a full time student at a MOOC you are in a very different social environment (home) that may be much less conducive to learning.
Very interesting take on things and worth a second and third read. Thanks for sharing.
Ok well this was just great 🤩
Money shot: "It’s that economically, colleges don’t derive their value from providing you something you could get for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library." (many PLs now fine-free, tho).
Omg this made me want to watch Good Will Hunting so badly. AND everything about it appealed to my lower middle class half Irish FU rich fucks attitude. By the end I was like https://tenor.com/bQuZe.gif and looking into Pomona College merch. But then I realized I'm currently going to a community college so I should just buy my community merch.
Terrific article, as always, Dan! I wish we could be more honest that our system of elite higher education is often as much about signaling one’s IQ and networking with other elites as it is about the actual education. In fact, as I said in my post (thank you so much for the shout-out!), in Europe the vast majority of post-secondary education happens outside the classroom, in apprenticeships and on-the-job training. This is the case even for careers like nursing, accounting, and financial advising.
And this last point gets to one reason I think MOOCs haven’t taken over. The vast, vast majority of people learn actively and by working collaboratively. We are a social species, and we learn by observing others, by trying things out, and by responding to feedback. Tech bros in Silicon Valley--the very people who were so gung ho about MOOCs--are probably among the very unusual people who are able to learn a topic by passively listening to an online lecture and working through problem sets on their own. Even Sal Khan intended his Khan Academy videos to be followed up with interactive classroom work. It’s yet another example of the phenomenon where people who are pushing a reform belong to a highly unusual group and don’t understand that ideas that work for them won’t work for most people.
Great post, thanks! I remember the promise of MOOCs and the subsequent fizzle. Higher ed is absolutely due for disruption. But it's clear MOOCs aren't the way to do it. Part of the problem is probably that higher ed wasn't designed to be for everyone. It was designed for the wealthy and powerful. Perhaps this is an example of the "dead hand of history" maintaining broken systems.
Personally, I think higher ed should be for everyone -- and I think it's very possible. It's being done everyday. (I teach at a community college in the CUNY system, so I'm biased.) I think there's a slow social recognition of cc's value. They are way more affordable than 4 years and the education a person can get there is often just as good. I'll get off my soapbox now.
As for the rest of higher ed: my sense is that over time the middle will fall out -- with lots of middle-tier schools closing (many already have) and we'll be left with the elite schools and public schools, inncluding cc's.
I really wish IQ or other g-loaded tests were more popular for employment. Could replace a lot of bullshit. I work in data analytics, and it's not clear to me that these data courses offer much. Anyone can look up the relevant algorithms in an hour and copy/paste Stack Overflow code. The real skill comes in knowing when to use them, how to present them, and what business problems to focus on.
I've worked with people who can copy/paste code that gets them 80% of the way, but can't wrap their head around how to alter that last 20% to make it for their needs. I've also worked with people that are like "I learned a new programming language to solve this problem." There's no course, online or in-person, that's going to turn someone from the first type of person to the second. I would know, because I've tried to.
There's value to hard-work and experience, of course, but I think we've oversold it. There's a lot more value to just being smart.