4 ms·

Essentially, what this says is that doing more stuff online shouldn't be an excuse to fire teachers. That seems very sensible: online education scales better th

Essentially, what this says is that doing more stuff online shouldn't be an excuse to fire teachers. That seems very sensible: online education scales better than classroom ed, but that doesn't mean that it's a self-evident thing to do, and we still haven't figured out the best practices, so until we do, we need as much professionals as we can to make sure those online classes are up to scratch.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
maratd 15y ago
> Essentially, what this says is that doing more stuff online shouldn't be an excuse to fire teachers. That seems very sensible No, it isn't sensible at all. This is an attempt by an entrenched interest to stave off and destroy innovation for their own benefit. The more teachers that work, the more dues they collect. They couldn't care less about the quality of the education rendered. Imagine a kid from a poor neighborhood sitting in on a lecture from a top tier university. That's what we're talking about. That kind of educational opportunity. And the unions are trying to destroy that. It's heartbreaking.
- nobody314159 15y ago
  The lectures are already online for the poor kid. What this is proposing is that you turn up at UC, pay your $50K tuition, are given a list of youtube URLs to the MIT lectures and collect your diploma.
  - thematt 15y ago
    The lectures may be online, but he's not getting credit for learning from them. Have you ever sat in a lecture with a couple hundred other students? It's not like the teaching is the least bit personal, so what does the medium matter at that point?
    - nobody314159 15y ago
      If the lectures are online and the lecturers are re-deployed to do supervisions and one-one tuition that's great. If as we all suspect, the whole dept is reduced to an admin person to collect the names and fees and a sys-admin to install the multiple choice problem set software - then that's less good !
      - thematt 15y ago
        Why is that less good? Let the market decide whether it's an effective alternative or not. If somebody can learn just as well from that medium then let them. Eliminating an entire department isn't a bad thing -- education is about the students, not the teachers -- regardless of what the unions would have you believe.
        nobody314159 15y ago
        >Let the market decide That's the clever part of MIT/Stanford etc putting all their lectures online. Whats the point of paying to go to UC when you can learn the same stuff at home? And then the UC diploma becomes worthless because everyone knows you just watched the same stuff as the guy at home. The only diplomas worth having will be those that still have real lecturers - like MIT and Stanford! A similar thing happened in the UK 10years ago. All the equivalents of community colleges were renamed universities. This was supported by all the UK's IVY league schools! The problem is that somebody going for a job with a degree from a mid-ranking uni is faced with an employer who isn't sure whether that is a 'real' university or a former college. So to 'play it safe' they only look for IVY league degrees. By pretending to support wider access to education - the top 5 places destroyed neatly all the competition!
- stdbrouw 15y ago
  No disagreement here in general, unions are what they are. I just don't think you can portray this specific deal as a kick in the nuts for democratizing top-notch education. I can just as easily imagine university admins trying to make a quick buck out of badly organized and recorded lectures as I can imagine reactionary professors trying to save their asses. Both are just as scary.
- jberryman 15y ago
  > Imagine a kid from a poor neighborhood sitting in on a lecture from a top tier university. That's what we're talking about. No, that's what you're imagining we're talking about.
- lutorm 15y ago
  This is an attempt by an entrenched interest to stave off and destroy innovation for their own benefit. No, it's a way by an entrenched interest to cut funding for teaching. They couldn't care less about the quality of the ecucation rendered. Yes, I'm talking about the UC.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

maratd 15y ago

> Essentially, what this says is that doing more stuff online shouldn't be an excuse to fire teachers. That seems very sensible No, it isn't sensible at all. This is an attempt by an entrenched interest to stave off and destroy innovation for their own benefit. The more teachers that work, the more dues they collect. They couldn't care less about the quality of the education rendered. Imagine a kid from a poor neighborhood sitting in on a lecture from a top tier university. That's what we're talking about. That kind of educational opportunity. And the unions are trying to destroy that. It's heartbreaking.

nobody314159 15y ago
The lectures are already online for the poor kid. What this is proposing is that you turn up at UC, pay your $50K tuition, are given a list of youtube URLs to the MIT lectures and collect your diploma.
- thematt 15y ago
  The lectures may be online, but he's not getting credit for learning from them. Have you ever sat in a lecture with a couple hundred other students? It's not like the teaching is the least bit personal, so what does the medium matter at that point?
  - nobody314159 15y ago
    If the lectures are online and the lecturers are re-deployed to do supervisions and one-one tuition that's great. If as we all suspect, the whole dept is reduced to an admin person to collect the names and fees and a sys-admin to install the multiple choice problem set software - then that's less good !
    - thematt 15y ago
      Why is that less good? Let the market decide whether it's an effective alternative or not. If somebody can learn just as well from that medium then let them. Eliminating an entire department isn't a bad thing -- education is about the students, not the teachers -- regardless of what the unions would have you believe.
      - nobody314159 15y ago
        >Let the market decide That's the clever part of MIT/Stanford etc putting all their lectures online. Whats the point of paying to go to UC when you can learn the same stuff at home? And then the UC diploma becomes worthless because everyone knows you just watched the same stuff as the guy at home. The only diplomas worth having will be those that still have real lecturers - like MIT and Stanford! A similar thing happened in the UK 10years ago. All the equivalents of community colleges were renamed universities. This was supported by all the UK's IVY league schools! The problem is that somebody going for a job with a degree from a mid-ranking uni is faced with an employer who isn't sure whether that is a 'real' university or a former college. So to 'play it safe' they only look for IVY league degrees. By pretending to support wider access to education - the top 5 places destroyed neatly all the competition!
stdbrouw 15y ago
No disagreement here in general, unions are what they are. I just don't think you can portray this specific deal as a kick in the nuts for democratizing top-notch education. I can just as easily imagine university admins trying to make a quick buck out of badly organized and recorded lectures as I can imagine reactionary professors trying to save their asses. Both are just as scary.
jberryman 15y ago
> Imagine a kid from a poor neighborhood sitting in on a lecture from a top tier university. That's what we're talking about. No, that's what you're imagining we're talking about.
lutorm 15y ago
This is an attempt by an entrenched interest to stave off and destroy innovation for their own benefit. No, it's a way by an entrenched interest to cut funding for teaching. They couldn't care less about the quality of the ecucation rendered. Yes, I'm talking about the UC.