4 ms·

That's the same as the question "can schools survive in the age of the book". Education is not technology/media.

_delirium 14y ago
That's something I've been thinking about lately. I personally don't learn any better from MOOCs than I do from working my way through a good textbook. So if universities were going to be obsoleted, the printing press is what should've done it, if most people learned like me. However, MOOC advocates are, I presume, betting that for most people a good series of video lectures is a more compelling way of learning than a good textbook. I wonder if it's the modality (visual vs. aural learners, etc.), the social pressure of people "taking a class" together, or something else. edit: For me personally, the biggest advance the internet has brought in autodidacticism is actually mainly on the textual front too: Wikipedia makes it much easier to find and navigate bodies of knowledge, and nicely complements the linear style of learning that you get by working through a textbook. There have long been encyclopedias of course, but Wikipedia is much bigger than most, always at hand, and somehow much easier to get engrossed in.
- mogrim 14y ago
  I've nothing against a good textbook, but MOOCs are so much more than simply substituting a book for a video - there's the online community, the structure that weekly exercises bring, and the possibility of a (nearly worthless) certificate at the end.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm surprised I don't see it mentioned more in these contexts, but there is already precedent for MOOC's: bar study courses. For about $3,000, BarBri will teach you all the law you need to pass the bar. Everyone takes the course, because law schools, ivory towers that they are, don't actually teach you much of the law. BarBri courses include all the things you have with Coursera, etc. Video lectures backed up with a big stack of paper course outlines (for reference), work sheets, online sample questions, assignment submission, etc. My experience with my bar course was that all the online/video stuff is superfluous. The most efficient way to learn the material is not to sit through the video lectures, but to work through the outlines, taking notes and doing practice questions. Text is just a vastly superior format to video for conveying information quickly. The real benefit of the course format is not the online/video crap, but collecting all the information into a series of self-contained outlines. That's the big advantage of the course over just going to a library. Of course we've had paper course outlines for god knows how long. And they haven't replaced law school, even in California where there is no requirement to go to law school. I didn't go to law school to learn the law--that was what BarBri was for. I went to law school to get a name on my resume that would get me a job, connect with professors who could serve as career mentors, and start building my professional network. The education itself is just 10% of the whole purpose of school.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    So, if I didn't care about the name on my resume, already having as I do a pretty decent career, why can't I just skip law school and do the online law course?
    - _delirium 14y ago
      Are you asking with a view towards becoming a licensed attorney, or with a view towards learning a sufficient amount about the law to be qualified to answer questions / make decisions, without being formally licensed to do so as a profession? If it's for formal licensing, only four states let you take the bar exam without attending an ABA-accredited law school (California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington). A few others have provisions for you to attend only 1 or 2 years of an accredited law school, and then do self-study for the remaining portion without actually earning a J.D. as a prerequisite (Maine, New York, Wyoming). But even in these states you typically have to engage in some kind of approved course of study, although at least in California, this can be via an online law course. I haven't looked into the others, but at one point I looked into it in California, and the two options are: 1) attend an unaccredited law school (could be an online one) for the equivalent of a 4-year course of study, and take certain exams along the way; or 2) follow a 4-year approved course of independent study supervised by a judge or a legal practice (the classic "reading law" apprenticeship option that was once standard, but has been phased out in most states).
      - tptacek 14y ago
        I wouldn't even mind law school! My problem is, I've only got a semester of undergrad. I was a professional developer more or less directly out of high school.
        rdl 14y ago
        The easiest solution if you want to get a great credential with no undergrad seems to be a London Business School or London School of Economics MBA, which does not depend on undergraduate degree, followed by using the MBA as a credential to apply to other schools (PhD programs or potentially law school). The other way with some programs is to do "special student" (non-degree) for grad school, and then get undergrad and grad requirements out of the way at the same time. I believe there are no-prior-undergrad PhDs through this method, at least in math.
rhizome 14y ago
You're right, and this is really an aggravating post, very ahistorical. These developments have occurred repeatedly throughout history, and that history tells us that they will both change in relation to each other. People are merely choosing to influence education with technology, just as they always have, and in fact there is a continual drive to do exactly this.

That's something I've been thinking about lately. I personally don't learn any better from MOOCs than I do from working my way through a good textbook. So if universities were going to be obsoleted, the printing press is what should've done it, if most people learned like me. However, MOOC advocates are, I presume, betting that for most people a good series of video lectures is a more compelling way of learning than a good textbook. I wonder if it's the modality (visual vs. aural learners, etc.), the social pressure of people "taking a class" together, or something else. edit: For me personally, the biggest advance the internet has brought in autodidacticism is actually mainly on the textual front too: Wikipedia makes it much easier to find and navigate bodies of knowledge, and nicely complements the linear style of learning that you get by working through a textbook. There have long been encyclopedias of course, but Wikipedia is much bigger than most, always at hand, and somehow much easier to get engrossed in.

mogrim 14y ago
I've nothing against a good textbook, but MOOCs are so much more than simply substituting a book for a video - there's the online community, the structure that weekly exercises bring, and the possibility of a (nearly worthless) certificate at the end.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 14y ago
I'm surprised I don't see it mentioned more in these contexts, but there is already precedent for MOOC's: bar study courses. For about $3,000, BarBri will teach you all the law you need to pass the bar. Everyone takes the course, because law schools, ivory towers that they are, don't actually teach you much of the law. BarBri courses include all the things you have with Coursera, etc. Video lectures backed up with a big stack of paper course outlines (for reference), work sheets, online sample questions, assignment submission, etc. My experience with my bar course was that all the online/video stuff is superfluous. The most efficient way to learn the material is not to sit through the video lectures, but to work through the outlines, taking notes and doing practice questions. Text is just a vastly superior format to video for conveying information quickly. The real benefit of the course format is not the online/video crap, but collecting all the information into a series of self-contained outlines. That's the big advantage of the course over just going to a library. Of course we've had paper course outlines for god knows how long. And they haven't replaced law school, even in California where there is no requirement to go to law school. I didn't go to law school to learn the law--that was what BarBri was for. I went to law school to get a name on my resume that would get me a job, connect with professors who could serve as career mentors, and start building my professional network. The education itself is just 10% of the whole purpose of school.
- tptacek 14y ago
  So, if I didn't care about the name on my resume, already having as I do a pretty decent career, why can't I just skip law school and do the online law course?
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Are you asking with a view towards becoming a licensed attorney, or with a view towards learning a sufficient amount about the law to be qualified to answer questions / make decisions, without being formally licensed to do so as a profession? If it's for formal licensing, only four states let you take the bar exam without attending an ABA-accredited law school (California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington). A few others have provisions for you to attend only 1 or 2 years of an accredited law school, and then do self-study for the remaining portion without actually earning a J.D. as a prerequisite (Maine, New York, Wyoming). But even in these states you typically have to engage in some kind of approved course of study, although at least in California, this can be via an online law course. I haven't looked into the others, but at one point I looked into it in California, and the two options are: 1) attend an unaccredited law school (could be an online one) for the equivalent of a 4-year course of study, and take certain exams along the way; or 2) follow a 4-year approved course of independent study supervised by a judge or a legal practice (the classic "reading law" apprenticeship option that was once standard, but has been phased out in most states).
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I wouldn't even mind law school! My problem is, I've only got a semester of undergrad. I was a professional developer more or less directly out of high school.
      - rdl 14y ago
        The easiest solution if you want to get a great credential with no undergrad seems to be a London Business School or London School of Economics MBA, which does not depend on undergraduate degree, followed by using the MBA as a credential to apply to other schools (PhD programs or potentially law school). The other way with some programs is to do "special student" (non-degree) for grad school, and then get undergrad and grad requirements out of the way at the same time. I believe there are no-prior-undergrad PhDs through this method, at least in math.

rhizome 14y ago

You're right, and this is really an aggravating post, very ahistorical. These developments have occurred repeatedly throughout history, and that history tells us that they will both change in relation to each other. People are merely choosing to influence education with technology, just as they always have, and in fact there is a continual drive to do exactly this.