10 ms·

There's so much potential in a better university/college. Imagine that in society we pooled our resources to make the best video/online courses for a variety o

There's so much potential in a better university/college. Imagine that in society we pooled our resources to make the best video/online courses for a variety of subjects. The best CS courses. The best history courses. The best biology courses. We could focus on making the courses accessible and translated. We could make the best assignments and projects, iterated and experimented on with a population of millions. Heck, we could even hire professional actors that would both help with engagement and with representation problems in various fields. Then in addition to being places of research, universities become the places we go to facilitate taking those courses and applying the knowledge. Watch the interactive videos, and expert tutors help you understand challenging topics, guide you where to look next, and facilitate labs. At least for undergraduate, this seems much better than what we have now. And then, why not open it up to everyone? We could all take various courses throughout our lives. I'd love to be continuously taking classes in new fields, but the world isn't set up that way.

rajlego 6y ago
Beautiful idea. Courses that improve over time iterated on research would be amazing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
robotresearcher 6y ago
Imagine we collected the best material in written, bound volumes. And nearly every city had a large collection you could borrow from for free. We did. The professors of history, psychology, art, biology, math, - everything - at the world's greatest universities very often write down what they know in books. We achieved this already. You can read Feynman's course on physics tonight. Your city library probably has it.
- mindvirus 6y ago
  Absolutely, and that's something I'm very grateful for! One of the things I love the most about where I live is the excellent library system, and I have taken a ton of advantage of it. That said, it's not always the best for serious self study, since often books lack answer keys or worked solutions. I'm not proposing distance ed. I'm proposing that we shape education around automating the rote things, in particular delivering lectures. I don't think the main benefit of being on campus is the lectures or coming up with assignments, instead (as another comment noted) it's the peers and the people you interact with and how they help you learn. And so by automating away the rote part of it and focusing on the creative (research, TAing, peer interaction), it seems like we should be able to create better outcomes.
  - robotresearcher 6y ago
    Why do you think universities still give lectures, as the (contemporary) material has been available in written form for a few hundred years? Thousands of professionals, most of them smart and well-intentioned, have had these choices since the advent of cheap printing. Yet lectures today would be recognizable to the ancient Greeks. Why?
    - mindvirus 6y ago
      That's a good question. I think two things: 1. High quality video recording and transmission is still relatively new technology, and it seems most lectures are audio visual performances. 2. There hasn't been a push for a paradigm shift. Lectures work well enough, and have lots of benefits like creating a gathering of people. But does COVID change that?
- prewett 6y ago
  There's a lot of value to paying someone who has spent decades reading all the things people wrote down and distilling the most important information, themes, and principles. I'm reading The Illiad right now (Pope's version). It's quite nice, but I don't understand it. I mean, I get what's going on, but I don't understand why they are telling me this. Why is it composed the way it is? Why start the last few months into a 10 year war? How does one even successfully camp out in front of an enemy city for ten years? Why didn't someone win already? Why are two enemy combatants duking it out while everyone else watches? Why are they willing to stop when the priests put out their poles saying it's nighttime, battle's over? Why are the priests even willing to go near two people fighting? And that's not even getting into all the literary stuff I'm completely missing. I have the source material. If I spent enough time reading up on ancient Greek culture, and reading analyses of The Illiad, etc. I'll probably get that. Or I could pay a guy who's already done it to explain all the important parts and point me to the things people have written down that are actually helpful (as opposed to not very insightful, based on obsolete information, pushing an ideology, or just flat-out wrong).
dumbfoundded 6y ago
I think the real value of a university is the community. What you're describing is basically a new textbook. It doesn't replace the people you interact with. Going to a great college doesn't mean great classes with awesome course material. It's other classmates you study with, it's the TAs that hold office hours, the professors too, sometimes.
- chipgap98 6y ago
  I can't emphasize this point enough. I learned a ton in the classes I took, but the real value I got from college was the people I was exposed to. I built a ton of lasting friendships and a strong network there, but more important was just the experience of being around smart and motivated people. My peers in college had higher ambitions and expectations for their lives than the people I grew up with. That caused me to shift how I thought about my own life and put me on a very different path. That just would not have happened if I took online classes.
- mcguire 6y ago
  I strongly agree. When I was an undergraduate, the "lower division", more introductory, required courses were taught by specialists in "Computer Science Education", whatever the heck that is. I hated them. They were ... useful, as a basis for everything later, but they weren't taught well and if that is all there were, I would be very unhappy about the time and money wasted. Then I reached the "upper division", mostly elective courses taught by active researchers in the given field. Sure, their lectures and such were not well polished and rather uneven, but their enthusiasm for the subject generally shone through and you could get more insight from a chat with a professor on a ten-minute walk from class than from any textbook you've ever seen. TAs that could understand the material and see where you went wrong. Classmates who were challenging and who asked questions you never thought about. The whole package is what makes it good.
  - antasvara 6y ago
    So what I'm hearing is that introductory classes could be replicated in a primarily online environment? I'd be a huge fan of moving the first year or so of college online (or at least having the option to do so) for a reduced rate.
mcguire 6y ago
Have you seen The Great Courses (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/ https://www.thegreatcourses.com/)?
908B64B197 6y ago
CS is already like that. Let's be realistic, there's only so many compilers books, algorithm or OS books around. And most classes are based around these. I can go coast to coast and everyone I'll meet who is doing an algorithm class will be doing more of less the same thing, only with variation on how hard the problem sets and labs are.
jmchuster 6y ago
Top universities already put all of their courses for free online. e.g. here's all of MIT's CS lectures: https://www.youtube.com/c/mitocw/playlists https://www.youtube.com/c/mitocw/playlists. There's no downside to them doing so, because they derive most of their profit from their reputations. And then if you want a more formalized course structure, you have online courses like KhanAcademy. And then if you want to personalize your learning, you can find individuals who are great at teaching that constantly are producing online content. e.g. Grant Sanderson's channel 3blue1brown, popular even amongst professionals, because it re-teaches concepts in a much more powerful and intuitive manner. I think the internet is already set up exactly the way that you are imagining. The only difference is that you won't get a reputable slip of paper.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  > The only difference is that you won't get a reputable slip of paper. I would add the costs behind providing that slip of paper are not insignificant. It requires having people with expert level knowledge of the field assess your work and your knowledge over a broad range of courses. So universities in the US are ridiculously over priced, but the value they provide is still > 0.
  - jmchuster 6y ago
    Oh, for sure, slips of paper can be super-valuable. I don't think their main value, however, come from the implied expert-level assessment. Rather, I think their value comes from the implied gating requirement to even get in in the first place. Harvard is more famous for how hard it is to get into, rather than how hard it is to graduate, and then the resulting exclusive club you get to become part of once you're in. Being part of an exclusive club and having a built-in reputation opens many more doors and makes getting some jobs a lot easier. So then you have to calculate the value of that potential. Department of Education estimated the earning potential for Ivy Leagues to be on average 40k more a year, up to 130k more a year. [1] http://archive.is/nOfLQ http://archive.is/nOfLQ If we're comparing a college then with no reputation vs taking only online classes, I wonder if there is much if any appreciable difference per year. Maybe at that point the value of the college education is mostly in the knowledge and skills you gain and the paper itself has negligible worth. So then make sure you're only paying a negligible amount to get that paper.
jimbokun 6y ago
> I'd love to be continuously taking classes in new fields, but the world isn't set up that way. But it kind of is that way? There is already probably more course content online than you could learn in a lifetime.
chobytes 6y ago
This is a recipe for a very poor education in my opinion. This sort of mass produced educational content, taught by professional educators rather than researchers, produces students who merely know facts and can perform basic algorithms. Real understanding of a field comes from long hours engaging with the subject and playing with ideas, and from interacting with others in the field. Working through educational material (where it exist) is obviously helpful, but it's not enough. tl;dr: Nobody becomes in expert in anything by working through a textbook.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  You can very easily become better than 99% of humanity at a topic by diligently working through an advanced textbook. That’s not genuine expertise but it’s not nothing. A community of practice is necessary for true expertise in mature fields but you can get a long, long way with a series of textbooks.
- NigroqueSim 6y ago
  Nobody becomes an expert at anything by going to college. Students who get an in Calculus aren't an expert at Calculus or anything close to, they mostly just drilled homework practice problems until they knew enough to an well on an exam. The goal of undergrad shouldn't be to make anyone an expert, that's what graduate school can be for.

rajlego 6y ago

Beautiful idea. Courses that improve over time iterated on research would be amazing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

robotresearcher 6y ago

Imagine we collected the best material in written, bound volumes. And nearly every city had a large collection you could borrow from for free. We did. The professors of history, psychology, art, biology, math, - everything - at the world's greatest universities very often write down what they know in books. We achieved this already. You can read Feynman's course on physics tonight. Your city library probably has it.

mindvirus 6y ago
Absolutely, and that's something I'm very grateful for! One of the things I love the most about where I live is the excellent library system, and I have taken a ton of advantage of it. That said, it's not always the best for serious self study, since often books lack answer keys or worked solutions. I'm not proposing distance ed. I'm proposing that we shape education around automating the rote things, in particular delivering lectures. I don't think the main benefit of being on campus is the lectures or coming up with assignments, instead (as another comment noted) it's the peers and the people you interact with and how they help you learn. And so by automating away the rote part of it and focusing on the creative (research, TAing, peer interaction), it seems like we should be able to create better outcomes.
- robotresearcher 6y ago
  Why do you think universities still give lectures, as the (contemporary) material has been available in written form for a few hundred years? Thousands of professionals, most of them smart and well-intentioned, have had these choices since the advent of cheap printing. Yet lectures today would be recognizable to the ancient Greeks. Why?
  - mindvirus 6y ago
    That's a good question. I think two things: 1. High quality video recording and transmission is still relatively new technology, and it seems most lectures are audio visual performances. 2. There hasn't been a push for a paradigm shift. Lectures work well enough, and have lots of benefits like creating a gathering of people. But does COVID change that?
prewett 6y ago
There's a lot of value to paying someone who has spent decades reading all the things people wrote down and distilling the most important information, themes, and principles. I'm reading The Illiad right now (Pope's version). It's quite nice, but I don't understand it. I mean, I get what's going on, but I don't understand why they are telling me this. Why is it composed the way it is? Why start the last few months into a 10 year war? How does one even successfully camp out in front of an enemy city for ten years? Why didn't someone win already? Why are two enemy combatants duking it out while everyone else watches? Why are they willing to stop when the priests put out their poles saying it's nighttime, battle's over? Why are the priests even willing to go near two people fighting? And that's not even getting into all the literary stuff I'm completely missing. I have the source material. If I spent enough time reading up on ancient Greek culture, and reading analyses of The Illiad, etc. I'll probably get that. Or I could pay a guy who's already done it to explain all the important parts and point me to the things people have written down that are actually helpful (as opposed to not very insightful, based on obsolete information, pushing an ideology, or just flat-out wrong).

dumbfoundded 6y ago

I think the real value of a university is the community. What you're describing is basically a new textbook. It doesn't replace the people you interact with. Going to a great college doesn't mean great classes with awesome course material. It's other classmates you study with, it's the TAs that hold office hours, the professors too, sometimes.

chipgap98 6y ago
I can't emphasize this point enough. I learned a ton in the classes I took, but the real value I got from college was the people I was exposed to. I built a ton of lasting friendships and a strong network there, but more important was just the experience of being around smart and motivated people. My peers in college had higher ambitions and expectations for their lives than the people I grew up with. That caused me to shift how I thought about my own life and put me on a very different path. That just would not have happened if I took online classes.
mcguire 6y ago
I strongly agree. When I was an undergraduate, the "lower division", more introductory, required courses were taught by specialists in "Computer Science Education", whatever the heck that is. I hated them. They were ... useful, as a basis for everything later, but they weren't taught well and if that is all there were, I would be very unhappy about the time and money wasted. Then I reached the "upper division", mostly elective courses taught by active researchers in the given field. Sure, their lectures and such were not well polished and rather uneven, but their enthusiasm for the subject generally shone through and you could get more insight from a chat with a professor on a ten-minute walk from class than from any textbook you've ever seen. TAs that could understand the material and see where you went wrong. Classmates who were challenging and who asked questions you never thought about. The whole package is what makes it good.
- antasvara 6y ago
  So what I'm hearing is that introductory classes could be replicated in a primarily online environment? I'd be a huge fan of moving the first year or so of college online (or at least having the option to do so) for a reduced rate.

mcguire 6y ago

Have you seen The Great Courses (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/ https://www.thegreatcourses.com/)?

908B64B197 6y ago

CS is already like that. Let's be realistic, there's only so many compilers books, algorithm or OS books around. And most classes are based around these. I can go coast to coast and everyone I'll meet who is doing an algorithm class will be doing more of less the same thing, only with variation on how hard the problem sets and labs are.

jmchuster 6y ago

Top universities already put all of their courses for free online. e.g. here's all of MIT's CS lectures: https://www.youtube.com/c/mitocw/playlists https://www.youtube.com/c/mitocw/playlists. There's no downside to them doing so, because they derive most of their profit from their reputations. And then if you want a more formalized course structure, you have online courses like KhanAcademy. And then if you want to personalize your learning, you can find individuals who are great at teaching that constantly are producing online content. e.g. Grant Sanderson's channel 3blue1brown, popular even amongst professionals, because it re-teaches concepts in a much more powerful and intuitive manner. I think the internet is already set up exactly the way that you are imagining. The only difference is that you won't get a reputable slip of paper.

jimbokun 6y ago
> The only difference is that you won't get a reputable slip of paper. I would add the costs behind providing that slip of paper are not insignificant. It requires having people with expert level knowledge of the field assess your work and your knowledge over a broad range of courses. So universities in the US are ridiculously over priced, but the value they provide is still > 0.
- jmchuster 6y ago
  Oh, for sure, slips of paper can be super-valuable. I don't think their main value, however, come from the implied expert-level assessment. Rather, I think their value comes from the implied gating requirement to even get in in the first place. Harvard is more famous for how hard it is to get into, rather than how hard it is to graduate, and then the resulting exclusive club you get to become part of once you're in. Being part of an exclusive club and having a built-in reputation opens many more doors and makes getting some jobs a lot easier. So then you have to calculate the value of that potential. Department of Education estimated the earning potential for Ivy Leagues to be on average 40k more a year, up to 130k more a year. [1] http://archive.is/nOfLQ http://archive.is/nOfLQ If we're comparing a college then with no reputation vs taking only online classes, I wonder if there is much if any appreciable difference per year. Maybe at that point the value of the college education is mostly in the knowledge and skills you gain and the paper itself has negligible worth. So then make sure you're only paying a negligible amount to get that paper.

jimbokun 6y ago

> I'd love to be continuously taking classes in new fields, but the world isn't set up that way. But it kind of is that way? There is already probably more course content online than you could learn in a lifetime.

chobytes 6y ago

This is a recipe for a very poor education in my opinion. This sort of mass produced educational content, taught by professional educators rather than researchers, produces students who merely know facts and can perform basic algorithms. Real understanding of a field comes from long hours engaging with the subject and playing with ideas, and from interacting with others in the field. Working through educational material (where it exist) is obviously helpful, but it's not enough. tl;dr: Nobody becomes in expert in anything by working through a textbook.

barry-cotter 6y ago
You can very easily become better than 99% of humanity at a topic by diligently working through an advanced textbook. That’s not genuine expertise but it’s not nothing. A community of practice is necessary for true expertise in mature fields but you can get a long, long way with a series of textbooks.
NigroqueSim 6y ago
Nobody becomes an expert at anything by going to college. Students who get an in Calculus aren't an expert at Calculus or anything close to, they mostly just drilled homework practice problems until they knew enough to an well on an exam. The goal of undergrad shouldn't be to make anyone an expert, that's what graduate school can be for.