10 ms·

Free Online Education Is Now Illegal in Minnesota

• nicholassmith 14y ago
  And once again a service discovers the thorny world of regulation framework that was design for a specific set of circumstances and is being applied like a hammer to an egg.
  • Turing_Machine 14y ago
    No, it's being applied exactly as it was intended: to reduce competition, for the benefit of existing players, at the expense of Minnesota consumers.
    • briandear 14y ago
      Exactly. This is what happens in blue states: protectionism and regulation designed to benefit a defined constituency while screwing the majority. This law never would be passed or enforced in Texas.
      • weiran 14y ago
        I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?
        • Surio 14y ago
          sarcasm, methinks (mehopes too)
        • njharman 14y ago
          If not sarcastic it's wildly ignant. Texas special interests ensure that majority of text books are bland, puritanical and contain creationist pseudo-science.
          • _delirium 14y ago
            Protection-of-trade laws are also a pretty common feature of "red states" in general; I don't think there's a discernible partisan divide. For example, Utah recently had its laws surrounding regulation of hair braiders partially invalidated (http://www.ij.org/utah-hairbraiding-release-8-9-2012 http://www.ij.org/utah-hairbraiding-release-8-9-2012). There was also a famous case in Louisiana over monks selling caskets without a license.
            • jivatmanx 14y ago
              Not to mention that East Texas is the Patent Troll capitol of the U.S.
          • jivatmanx 14y ago
            No joke. Thomas Jefferson was removed from history textbook and replaced with Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin because he was a Deist and coined "Separation of Church and State". http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=... “The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said. Me: Yes, it was.
            • droithomme 14y ago
              The Jefferson thing is a very bad example since he is still covered and mentioned. The issue in question was should he be discussed as an example of an Enlightenment Philosopher and only as relates to political revolutions. That was the previous standard. The previous phrasing constrained discussion in the context of the enlightenment and not the broader context of his political ideas. When they revise their standards they change a lot of things. Here is the actual change they made. This is found on page 25 of the list of changes to High School Social Studies: BEFORE: > explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Thomas Jefferson, and William Blackstone on political revolutions from 1750 to the present; AFTER: > explain the political philosophies of individuals such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Thomas Jefferson, and William Blackstone; and this is from page 42 BEFORE: > analyze the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on the development of the U.S. government; AFTER: > identify the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, George Mason, Roger Sherman, and James Wilson, on the development of the U.S. government; These are the actual changes. When attacking this change one should be aware of what they are. To comment on this without knowing what the changes were, such as the NYT did in their article, is simply ignorant. Unfortunately the quality of their reporting has gone down considerably in recent years and fact checking is clearly not done on many articles. The claim that Jefferson is "being removed from textbooks" is absolutely incorrect and thus a poor example to continue using in criticizing Texas.
• iwwr 14y ago
  This is an opportunity for Minnesota residents to learn about geoIP and how to circumvent it. I sense a fresh new Coursera course.
  • martin-adams 14y ago
    Catch-22 I'm afraid.
  • ianb 14y ago
    Coursera doesn't care if you break their Terms Of Service in this regard, so I see no reason they would put up any restriction. Their interpretation is that you can spend up to 49% of your studying time in Minnesota, probably including offline studying which might plausibly happen out of state. They are basically inviting Minnesotans to ignore the law (as we all should!)
• jghefner 14y ago
  Makes me wonder if online for-profit schools have government permission to offer instruction in the state.
  • briandear 14y ago
    Follow the money. Walden University is based in MN. Find our which politicians received the contributions. But Minnesota people will still continue voting for the same people so even if we did know, it's of no consequence. It's the same reason guys like Jesse Jackson Jr, and Marion Berry keep getting reelected year after year despite their obvious corruption and incompetence.
• mkhattab 14y ago
  I wonder if they will apply the same restrictions to Udacity which offer course completion certificates? It's worrying that such a harmless mode of learning can be threatened by the stupidity of a few government officials.
• EzGraphs 14y ago
  Coursera terms of service: https://www.coursera.org/about/terms https://www.coursera.org/about/terms Notice for Minnesota Users Coursera has been informed by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that under Minnesota Statutes (136A.61 to 136A.71), a university cannot offer online courses to Minnesota residents unless the university has received authorization from the State of Minnesota to do so. If you are a resident of Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or (2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class will be done from outside the State of Minnesota. Previously reported: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/minnesota-gives-coursera-the-boot-citing-a-decades-old-law/40542 http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/minnesota-gives-cours... Previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4671196 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4671196
• abbasmehdi 14y ago
  I'd love to learn which government official and department is responsible for this action so we can direct our dislike of this decision towards them. P.S. The ML class Andrew Ng is teaching on Coursera is phenomenal by the way.
  • uvdiv 14y ago
    A bureaucracy calling itself a "Minnesota Office of Higher Education" https://www.coursera.org/about/terms https://www.coursera.org/about/terms https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/ https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/
    • briandear 14y ago
      Which is entirely Democrat.
      • truebecomefalse 14y ago
        Source?
        • uvdiv 14y ago
          Not precisely that, but the director was the Democratic party leader in the state senate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Pogemiller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Pogemiller Party aside, him being a 30-year career politician is noteworthy in itself.
      • mattdeboard 14y ago
        Every comment of yours in this thread is partisan political bullshit. Take it back to reddit.
        • briandear 14y ago
          The FACTS are that Lawrence Pogemiller, director of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education is a Democrat. Pogemiller represented Minnesota Senate District 59. District 59 includes the University of Minnesota, the largest University in Minnesota. So yes, party is relevant to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Pogemiller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Pogemiller
• belorn 14y ago
  What defines as "instructions"? Most products has instruction manuals. Most companies has instruction manuals for new employes. Written instructions are not that uncommon.
• dschiptsov 14y ago
  Something is very wrong with that country. It is not mere about depriving people from their right to free information access, it is an attempt to deprive people from their right to grow up, to improve their lives, to learn how they have been cheated and by whom. For example, to learn that not just those finance guys, but the whole economic science has no clue about what's going on with the economy, except that it is very broken.)
  • oleganza 14y ago
    Something is very wrong because people believe in positive rights. Like the right to information access, to improve lives etc. Because to provide positive rights someone must be coerced to do so. And you end up with a huge government that ceases, distributes and tells you how to live. Enter negative rights. For instance, a right to protect yourself and your property against aggression. You can't take mine, I can't take yours. Now we do not always need anyone else to resolve any conflict between us. (We may ask a judge for help, but it is not required.) In this case the problem is not with a right to education. Minnesota state violates negative rights of the educator and a student to do what they want with themselves (provided they do not aggress upon property of others). If you think in terms of negative rights you will see solution to many difficult problems. But if you continue thinking in terms of positive rights, you will get more arbitrary judgements and more aggression.
    • erikpukinskis 14y ago
      Positive rights are necessary because many natural rights have been taken away. I think, as a human born in the U.S. I have a divine right to erect a structure to sleep in and keep the snow off so I don't die. But that right disappeared long ago. Since the property-owning class (private and government) took that right away from me, they now have an obligation to provide me some things. Or would you prefer armed revolution where I take back my right to establish reasonable shelter?
      • oleganza 14y ago
        You never had a right to establish any shelter. You have a right to appropriate what's unowned or receive something in voluntary exchange. Now if you stand on a justly owned property (like my house), then you play by the rules of the owner or go away. If you stand on unjustly owned property (like a forest protected by the state), then you may use part of it as your own provided you do not alter objective properties of this forest that were enjoyed by everybody prior to you. E.g. if you noticeably alter the air quality by cutting it down, prior users of the air may ask you for compensation. Also, it's a losing strategy to talk about somebody's obligations. If somebody has robbed you, he must 1) compensate what's stolen 2) be punished. He is not obliged to provide you with social security, free speech and fast internet.
• delinka 14y ago
  I don't see how you can make such a determination about a online information site (i.e. one that provides information but not accredited diplomas or degrees.) You can learn all day from Wikipedia, will they ban wikipedia next? This really looks like politicians overreaching on behalf of some frightened post-secondary institution. From the article's page, commenter Greg Shenaut points out that further reading of MN law would render this political "threat" moot. His comment pasted below: Bottom line, they should have considered Coursera, since it offers no degrees at all, under their “Private Career Schools” statute (Chapter 141) rather than under their “Private and Public Postsecondary Education Act (136A.61-71)”. The latter act is concerned with (1) degree granting institutions and (2) schools that call themselves universities or colleges as part of their name. Coursera grants no degrees and doesn't call itself anything except “Coursera” (or coursera.org), so it is really bizarre that they decided to regulate it under 136A.61-71. If they had made the opposite determination, then, under 141.21(10) and 141.35(17), Coursera would probably have been exempted from any need for official approval: “[The Private Career Schools Act] shall not apply to... schools with no physical presence in Minnesota, as determined by the office, engaged exclusively in offering distance instruction that are located in and regulated by other states or jurisdictions”.
  • sejje 14y ago
    Reading the article informed me that they are banning Coursera because universities are conducting classes on the site. That's not the case for wikipedia. Additionally, said universities are referring to themselves as their traditional name (e.g. "stanford university") and not "coursera."
    • delinka 14y ago
      I seem to have missed this detail. However, why is it a problem if Stanford contracts out to some third party to operate a particular course? I enrolled in a local college a few years ago and took courses online. Not one of those courses was located within the college's web site- they were all third parties. Why would I have the expectation that the college doesn't vouch for the validity of the course material? EDIT after reading the update: I read this as back to square one. Stanford is offering courses via Coursera for free. But Stanford doesn't offer free degrees. Why is that a problem? MN's opinion seems to be its citizens can't get a degree online from a school outside of MN unless that school is registered with OHE. However, the quoted law speaks to not having a physical presence.
• imgabe 14y ago
  How could they enforce this? If someone from Minnesota takes a class, is Minnesota going to sue Coursera? Fine/jail the student? There's really no option that doesn't leave Minnesota looking bad.
  • dmix 14y ago
    > How could they enforce this? Whatever government agency the schools in minnesota have an influence over.
• jeremyhaberman 14y ago
  It gets worse: religious schools are exempt from this law: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=136A.657 https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=136A.657 Here's an index of the relevant statutes (scroll down to the 'MINNESOTA PRIVATE AND OUT-OF-STATE PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION ACT' section): https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=136A https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=136A
  • pdubs 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's there to exempt things like seminaries. >Subd. 4.Statement required; religious nature. Any degree awarded upon completion of a religiously exempt program shall include descriptive language to make the religious nature of the award clear.
    • jeremyhaberman 14y ago
      Good clarification, pdubs. It seems a university like St. John's might not be exempt, but its School of Theology might be. If true, it's still strange to me that school with a non-free graduate degree in liturgical studies would be exempt, but an online school offering free courses in science, business, history, etc. would not be exempt.
      • pdubs 14y ago
        I agree it's strange and I'm not sure how the letter of the law is being applied to Coursera, but it seems like this wouldn't even let a qualifying religious program give a B.A. or B.S. in Theology, more you'd be able to get a "certificate of congrats you can be a minister for our church". Also protects VBS and confirmation class type courses.
      • protomyth 14y ago
        Liturgical studies by a religious organization are specifically protected under the the 1st Amendment[1][2]. Schooling has been a state domain for a very long time (look at Texas and California's influence on textbooks). The regulating of schools does not violate the US or MN constitution. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) [2] consumer protection law and religious organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut
• Surio 14y ago
  EDIT I: Based on feedback below, I have added my two bits to this conversation Even supposedly conservative countries are opening up their elite curriculums like this NPTEL effort in India to disseminate the IIT curricula for free on YouTube: http://nptel.iitm.ac.in http://nptel.iitm.ac.in Placed in context, this bit of news seems particularly galling! ================ I'm going to try this line again, particularly since tvtropes says: "On its way to becoming a Forgotten Trope, a Seen It All Suicide occurs when a cartoon character, having seen some outrageous sight, proclaims "Now I've seen everything!" and promptly produces a pistol and shoots himself on the spot." Wat?[0] >>> Now I've seen everything! !Bang! <<< [1] [0] That "Wat" feeling. Cf., https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAllSuicide http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAllSuicide EDIT II: [This last line removed/redacted based on feedback from below]
  • EvilTerran 14y ago
    How about we downmod this post because "Wat? Now I've seen everything! !Bang!" adds nothing of value to the conversation? Or we could downmod it because the only thing less funny than an old meme is an old meme that the teller felt the need to pre-emptively explain? Or... how about downmodding because saying that people would only do so "because they didn't get it immediately" implies that you think they're slow-witted? Insulting your audience is never a good way to get a warm reception.
    • Surio 14y ago
      I preferred the explanation below that explained it all without too much snark. I think being humourous is a definite value add in itself. My two bits. >> Insulting your audience is never a good way to get a warm reception. I wasn't insulting anyone. I was going by my own comment's previous reception. A downvote, and nothing else to say why so. You may have a point that I assumed the worst (about people not getting it), but neither does downvote w/o even a cursory explanation. It is not as if we dropped out of our mothers and learnt to navigate the World A-class, from day-one. Edit: I appreciate your trying to point out HN culture to me, but it could always be done without excessive snark (IMHO).
• ekianjo 14y ago
  When are we going to stop the nonsense to stop any disruption to any existing business by making laws against it? Just like in france recently they want to tax Google for referencing the contents of french newspapers on the basis that they are benefiting from their contents to put their ads - this never stops and the politicians are too easy to corrupt.
  • njharman 14y ago
    When we stop being a for-profit society. Don't hold your breath.
    • marknutter 14y ago
      No; when government becomes sufficiently small.
      • Reebz 14y ago
        No and no; when we are sufficiently globalized and companies are taxed (fairly) by all countries. In your example, France is pissed off they're not getting a slice of the billion dollar pie because Google sits in the US. Our archaic ideas of "nations" are tied to land masses - not a great partner to a distributable service that can be accessed almost anywhere near the speed of light.
        • oleganza 14y ago
          Your archaic idea of taxes is what holds back productive efforts to be distributed wherever needed at the maximum speed.
        • mercurial 14y ago
          At the risk of derailing the discussion, it's my understanding that the US government is not getting much in corporate taxes from Google either, thanks to a well-established practice of tax-dodging by funneling profits into Ireland.
      • 14y ago
• jiggy2011 14y ago
  It seems this would hinge on defining coursera as a "college"? I'm assuming this was legislation passed in order to prevent people creating bogus for-profit universities. But coursera doesn't charge money or offer accredited qualifications. So how would this differ from any other educational site, like say stackoverflow? Does it hinge around the fact that it is unofficially associated with certain existing universities like Stanford etc by using their logos and lecturers?
• S4M 14y ago
  An U.S state is making illegal online education before even Iran does? Well, I hope they won't try to enforce this regulation by blocking coursera inside Minnesota, that would start to be really scary.
• csomar 14y ago
  From my understanding, Coursera can charge a fee (say $1) and become fully legal. That could be a third option for Minnesota citizens.
  • randomdata 14y ago
    Do scholarships qualify? Maybe everyone in Minnesota can automatically receive one for use at any otherwise free institution.
  • ianb 14y ago
    It's not the "free" part that is causing the problem – the law is that anyone offering courses has to register and pay a fee to the state, which might seem reasonable for an institution charging tuition. It becomes absurd when they ask that an institution like Coursera ask permission of the state and pay a fee to provide free classes that lead to no degree.
    • briandear 14y ago
      The government loves their fees. You can't take a dump Minnesota without paying someone. Same in California.
• jeremiep 14y ago
  In other news, smart people are now illegal aliens in Minnesota.
• tokenadult 14y ago
  As correctly pointed out by another comment posted overnight in Minnesota's time zone, this blog post is just blogspam of the earlier Chronicle of Higher Education blog post, which was discussed on Hacker News beginning yesterday. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4671196 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4671196 The title of the Slate blogspam piece is even more exaggerated and link-baiting than the title of the Chronicle piece; both titles are factually wrong. Both blog posts overstate the impact of the Minnesota notice to higher education institutions, which has resulted only in a fig-leaf change to Coursera's ToS directed to Minnesota residents, and has had NO effect on Coursera's operation in Minnesota. As noted in my comment on the first thread, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4672038 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4672038 I am a Minnesota resident, I am enrolled in multiple Coursera courses (and two of my children are enrolled in Coursera courses), and I will be speaking to my state legislators about this as a precaution after first speaking to the Minnesota Department of Education about this when business hours begin here. The sun will rise in the east here in Minnesota just like everywhere else today, and all is well with the world. Well, maybe not quite everything is well with the world, as two of the top eleven most active posts on HN just now http://news.ycombinator.com/active http://news.ycombinator.com/active are both discussions of this very exaggerated story about Minnesota, neither checked with actual on-the-ground reporting on students currently enrolled in Coursera courses in Minnesota. ONE MORE EDIT: Thanks to the several commenters (at various comment levels in various subthreads) who suggested policy considerations to bring up with the offices of my state senator and state representative today during the campaign season, and to the commenters who pointed to various possible interpretations of the relevant statutes and possible partisan political considerations related to this issue. I'll digest all that after giving blood today, and send an email to the state Office of Higher Education https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/ https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/ and to my legislators. Over the weekend, I'll be doing homework in my Coursera courses [smile].
  • impendia 14y ago
    I agree with most of what you say (and thank you also for the link), but not "all is well". Quite possibly the importance of this law should not be overstated, and I agree with you and your children carrying on with your Coursera courses. But apparently you will be doing so in violation of the law. Should not unjust laws be protested, if perhaps also disobeyed? I would not exactly be afraid to continue using Coursera in Minnesota, but experience has taught me that law enforcement should never be trusted 100% to be reasonable. That said, you mentioned that you will be speaking with your state legislators -- you are doing as much to fight this as anyone reasonably could, and for that you have my gratitude. If 10,000 other Minnesotans took the same action as you, this would die as it deserves to.
• j45 14y ago
  Education, and self-education specifically is a fundamental human right. I can't even begin to wrap my head around this.
• mikecaron 14y ago
  And this is a prime opportunity for Minnesota residents to learn about proxies :)
• tomjen3 14y ago
  Someone should go to prison for this.
• xxiao 14y ago
  gosh, this is more absurd than Texas's "praying for rain"
• jlarocco 14y ago
  Wow, there's a lot of hyperbole going on here. I'm a little disappointed people on HN are falling for it. It seems pretty clear from reading the article that Minnesota isn't stopping anybody from taking online courses. But to be officially recognized in Minnesota requires that the entity providing the education is registered as an educational entity in Minnesota. I'm pretty sure most states have laws like this. Here's why: I know nothing about biology, but without laws like this, there would be nothing stopping me from offering classes on biology. In this case it's obvious Coursera is legit, but in a lot of cases it may not be so obvious.
  • anewguy 14y ago
    Imagine if people could sell goods and services to each other without the resident government doing a quality check. What a hell that would be. Wait a second, is this a certified political opinion that I'm replying to? Do you have your Internet politics license? I don't want to be cheated arguing with a low-quality commenter.
    • jlarocco 14y ago
      First, you're kinda putting words in my mouth. I'm not defending the law, I'm just pointing out that it's not as unjustified as people are making it out to be. The government provides and regulates education for children, it's not entirely unreasonable that they'd have their hand in higher education, too. Also, it's nice to think that everybody would play nice, but without laws like this there are assholes who would teach people crap. Laws like this don't exist because somebody decided to make an arbitrary law out of nowhere. Apparently it was a big enough problem that the majority of people in Minnesota thought there should be a law...
      • anewguy 14y ago
        No, it's absolutely fuckjng deplorable when a government stops the free flow of goods, services, and information to protect archaic business practices.
  • agwa 14y ago
• jakeonthemove 14y ago
  This is a classic case of a law that needs to be changed. When your country has an education problem, even charging the universities a fee for free courses is simply stupid.
• bennesvig 14y ago
  I live in Minnesota. I had never heard of Coursera, but I just signed up for my first course. I had also never heard of BuckyBalls before the government threatened to ban them and ended up buying some. Interesting how prohibition or threat of creates certain desires.
• nicolethenerd 14y ago
  This is very worrying to me. Not because of the actual ruling itself (which seems fairly unenforceable, unless they're going to get Minnesota-based ISPs to block Coursera), but because of the precedent it sets. What else can states ask their residents not to read or look at? And what are the consequences if they do? Additionally, while a private resident of Minnesota can happily continue using Coursera (at least for now) without consequence, this could have an impact on Minnesota public schools. If I were a Minnesota public school teacher, I would now be very reluctant to use Coursera in my classroom. All it takes is one student to tell Mommy and Daddy that they got assigned homework from an "illegal website," and there could be a shitstorm. (I realize that Coursera isn't really targeted at school-age kids, but what if it had been Khan Academy?)
• sxp 14y ago
  FYI, this rule has been changed:"Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free. No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera." http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/19/minnesota_coursera_ban_state_won_t_crack_down_on_free_online_courses_after.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/19/minnesota...