I do not see this as a problem with Thrun, but as a problem with the current educational system. If MOOC's carried a fraction of the "academic credibility" that college degrees did, Udacity would be a home run already. This will require a cultural shift, and companies like Udacity are sowing the seeds.
As Warren Buffet has said, the courses he took at Wharton barely differed in quality from the ones he took at Nebraska. Our culture is so obsessed with shallow accolades that it is slow to recognize a humongous opportunity right underneath its very nose.
There is absolutely no reason that MOOC's cannot teach many college-level courses as good as or better than their real life counterparts. Unfortunately, the motivation of students largely stems from the aforementioned shallow accolades.
As a filtering mechanism for professional skills, I think the current academic system has some flaws which MOOC addresses nicely, perhaps not as a complete replacement, but a powerful complement. But the reality is, academia should be used to filter academics, and in many industries, a degree represents nothing more than 4 years that could have been spent learning the actual profession and adding value to the economy.
If MOOC's carried a fraction of the "academic credibility" that college degrees did, Udacity would be a home run already.
It is unclear to me that any educational system that passes such a small percentage of students in Elem Stats would ever have a hope of gaining academic credibility. That's the playing field.
What an instructor at SJSU would do that Thrun is not going to do is lots of office hours, question-answering, and mentoring/being there. That's what it seems to require.
Personally I think it took a great deal of courage for Thrun to recognize that this is a game he is unlikely to win.
It is unclear to me that any educational system that passes such a small percentage of students in Elem Stats would ever have a hope of gaining academic credibility.
Do you think that if they inflated their pass-rates that you'd find them credible?
There is too much focus on pass-rates[1]. I shouldn't have to point out to a person who implies having taken statistics that it is silly to compare selective institutions' pass-rates to the pass-rates of open-enrollment institutions. Add the benefits of "free" and "I don't have to leave my home/workplace/etc." as is the case with MOOCs, and you have the potential for greatly expanded enrollment. Why would you think that large enrollment growth would generate better pass rates?
[1] I'm an instructor at a two-year college / vocational college where some people seem to never shut up about pass rates. The State also seems to think that pass-rates == quality, and has set about incentive-izing programs with "good" pass-rates. Even worse, one local (large) employer insists upon "B" or above average for anyone it hires.
Personally I think it took a great deal of courage for Thrun to recognize that this is a game he is unlikely to win.
Maybe he's not in it for the money, but to make genuine improvement.
Comments
I do not see this as a problem with Thrun, but as a problem with the current educational system. If MOOC's carried a fraction of the "academic credibility" that college degrees did, Udacity would be a home run already. This will require a cultural shift, and companies like Udacity are sowing the seeds.
As Warren Buffet has said, the courses he took at Wharton barely differed in quality from the ones he took at Nebraska. Our culture is so obsessed with shallow accolades that it is slow to recognize a humongous opportunity right underneath its very nose.
There is absolutely no reason that MOOC's cannot teach many college-level courses as good as or better than their real life counterparts. Unfortunately, the motivation of students largely stems from the aforementioned shallow accolades.
As a filtering mechanism for professional skills, I think the current academic system has some flaws which MOOC addresses nicely, perhaps not as a complete replacement, but a powerful complement. But the reality is, academia should be used to filter academics, and in many industries, a degree represents nothing more than 4 years that could have been spent learning the actual profession and adding value to the economy.
It is unclear to me that any educational system that passes such a small percentage of students in Elem Stats would ever have a hope of gaining academic credibility. That's the playing field.
What an instructor at SJSU would do that Thrun is not going to do is lots of office hours, question-answering, and mentoring/being there. That's what it seems to require.
Personally I think it took a great deal of courage for Thrun to recognize that this is a game he is unlikely to win.
Do you think that if they inflated their pass-rates that you'd find them credible?
There is too much focus on pass-rates[1]. I shouldn't have to point out to a person who implies having taken statistics that it is silly to compare selective institutions' pass-rates to the pass-rates of open-enrollment institutions. Add the benefits of "free" and "I don't have to leave my home/workplace/etc." as is the case with MOOCs, and you have the potential for greatly expanded enrollment. Why would you think that large enrollment growth would generate better pass rates?
[1] I'm an instructor at a two-year college / vocational college where some people seem to never shut up about pass rates. The State also seems to think that pass-rates == quality, and has set about incentive-izing programs with "good" pass-rates. Even worse, one local (large) employer insists upon "B" or above average for anyone it hires.
Maybe he's not in it for the money, but to make genuine improvement.
Yes, those people comprise the playing field.