3 ms·

I don't think edX was deliberately misleading people about the "free education" aspect. They are a non-profit, and I think they genuinely wanted to open up educ

I don't think edX was deliberately misleading people about the "free education" aspect. They are a non-profit, and I think they genuinely wanted to open up education to people around the world. They tried that for over 5 years, only charging for verified certificates. The switch to charging for full course content happened after many years of trying to compete with Coursera (and to a lesser extent, Udacity).

wegs 6y ago
All the execs make for-profit salaries, and profits flow back as investments of the MIT/Harvard endowments. They qualify as a not-for-profit on paper, but they're no different than any other investment of the MIT/Harvard endowments. Virtually everyone at edX who was mission-driven left in the great purge of 2017 (or was it 16? or 18? I might be off by a year). More than a third of the organization, including the author of the platform, left around that time. The CEO walked around, publicly announcing he'd switch to paid models as soon as Coursera did. If that's not an attempt at market collusion, I don't know what is.
vxNsr 6y ago
Whether intentional or not, it's a pretty frustrating experience to not able to do all the course work, and for many courses you can't even pay to do it. bec they're archived the course that's it. You get just the partial class. Additionally despite being an online platform that ostensibly allows you to work on your own schedule, they still cut off access after some arbitrarily predetermined amount of time and there's nothing you can do to extend it. Again, for many courses, you can't even pay bec they're archived. the only way to finish the course to create a new account.