4 ms·

I have little doubt that the problems discussed actually exist, but the biggest reason for the difference is simple economics. Anything free, or at extremely l

I have little doubt that the problems discussed actually exist, but the biggest reason for the difference is simple economics. Anything free, or at extremely low cost, is over-consumed; hence the many sign-us for the course. But completing a course is NOT free, or usually even cheap, it takes a great deal of time and effort for any but the simplest courses; therefore most end up dropping out when it stops being free. As for the "cheating versus mastery" part, it depends on why and exactly how he is working it. Simply taking the course over and over could be either; signing up for multiple, simultaneous sessions and picking best scoring sessions is pretty obviously cheating.

randomdata 14y ago
But cheating whom, exactly? It is not like the mark matters at the end of the day. What matters is if the material has been learned, and if it takes several iterations to finally learn it fully, so be it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
drcube 14y ago
>signing up for multiple, simultaneous sessions and picking best scoring sessions is pretty obviously cheating. Why? Taking the course multiple times sequentially is potentially okay, but taking it multiple times in parallel is "obviously cheating"? What's the difference, assuming it is always the same student taking the test? Isn't practice something to be encouraged, and not punished?
- weaksauce 14y ago
  Practice is indeed something to be encouraged. Practicing to the test is no better than teaching to the test though. It's fine if there are no outside consequences like job offers, certificates with a score behind them etc. It is cheating though.
  - pitt1980 14y ago
    Its cheating because its against the rules. The question is as the designer of the rules should you design that to be against the rules? Practicing to the test is a seperate question and a function of how useful you make the test Another interesting question is jobs, somewhere once (I don't have time to find a good link) there was talk that the business model behind Udacity was that it could sell more accurate info on students to employers than colleges can for instance they can track who finishes stuff early vs who waits until the last minute to turn something in

randomdata 14y ago

But cheating whom, exactly? It is not like the mark matters at the end of the day. What matters is if the material has been learned, and if it takes several iterations to finally learn it fully, so be it.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

drcube 14y ago

>signing up for multiple, simultaneous sessions and picking best scoring sessions is pretty obviously cheating. Why? Taking the course multiple times sequentially is potentially okay, but taking it multiple times in parallel is "obviously cheating"? What's the difference, assuming it is always the same student taking the test? Isn't practice something to be encouraged, and not punished?

weaksauce 14y ago
Practice is indeed something to be encouraged. Practicing to the test is no better than teaching to the test though. It's fine if there are no outside consequences like job offers, certificates with a score behind them etc. It is cheating though.
- pitt1980 14y ago
  Its cheating because its against the rules. The question is as the designer of the rules should you design that to be against the rules? Practicing to the test is a seperate question and a function of how useful you make the test Another interesting question is jobs, somewhere once (I don't have time to find a good link) there was talk that the business model behind Udacity was that it could sell more accurate info on students to employers than colleges can for instance they can track who finishes stuff early vs who waits until the last minute to turn something in