3 ms·

I read the original open letter and think that there's quite a bit of misleading and FUDding, of course, masterfully done coming from a philosophy prof. I appro

by Jun8 14y ago

I read the original open letter and think that there's quite a bit of misleading and FUDding, of course, masterfully done coming from a philosophy prof. I approach this from a different angle: "We believe the purchasing of online and blended courses is not driven by concerns about pedagogy, but by an effort to restructure the U.S. university system in general ..." I agree with him completely here, a large part of this discussion is not about pedagogy but is financially driven. However, unlike him, I think this is a good thing at a time where many universities are battling high costs and students loans have reached record high levels. The problem with his main argument (and with similar arguments about teacher ratings, etc.) is that it pits the best possible case against the proposed idea in trying to refute it: Isn't having an excellent prof/teacher in flesh and blood who cares about your education better than some canned video? Well, obviously it is, but the point is a lot of professors/teachers are not like that, they, like everything else, have a distribution of excellence. If we rephrase the argument as: Isn't having lecture videos of good faculty preferable to having an underpaid, uncaring professor/teacher or the option of canceling that course because the university cannot afford it? This is the question that Prof. Hadreas needs to answer, I think.

glesica 14y ago
I agree with your general sentiments, but, and you are certainly not alone in this, you glossed over the financial issues facing universities. In many cases, the budget issues facing universities are not all endogenous, unavoidable problems. I think a better strategy would be to figure out why, exactly, universities are so strapped for cash (I've worked in higher education, it isn't a simple issue) and target those issues instead. This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse, education.
- mjt0229 14y ago
  Exactly.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse, education. Why do you believe that worse but cheaper education wouldn't provide a better value to students?
  - glesica 14y ago
    I see your point. I was thinking (though I didn't state it explicitly, apologies) of "worse" to mean "worse value". For instance, reducing the quality by, say 10%, but reducing the price by 50% would probably be a good value for many students, I agree with that. My concern is that the quality would drop "more" than the price. This concern is partially motivated by my background. I used to work for a university doing academic technology-related stuff. In my opinion, many of the technologies that were being acquired didn't contribute much to the quality of the education offered (beyond looking sexy when prospective students came in for tours). However, the tech was often extremely expensive and, in fact, required additional fees in many cases.
- Jun8 14y ago
  I agree with your strategy to solve the actual problem (son't forget the predatory student loaning business), but that's like asking for a complete solution to the TSP (only half joking, social problems are wicked problems, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem, that may actually be harder to solve) whereas an approximate solution may suffice in its place or in the interim. I think the MOOC's present such a solution. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attack the problem you mention, though.
jaibot 14y ago
Better argument: Isn't having free, high-quality lectures preferable, _for many people and in many contexts_, to the alternative, very expensive option? Even if it's not the exact level of quality, there's utility in not going broke.

by Jun8 14y ago

glesica 14y ago

I agree with your general sentiments, but, and you are certainly not alone in this, you glossed over the financial issues facing universities. In many cases, the budget issues facing universities are not all endogenous, unavoidable problems. I think a better strategy would be to figure out why, exactly, universities are so strapped for cash (I've worked in higher education, it isn't a simple issue) and target those issues instead. This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse, education.

mjt0229 14y ago
Exactly.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse, education. Why do you believe that worse but cheaper education wouldn't provide a better value to students?
- glesica 14y ago
  I see your point. I was thinking (though I didn't state it explicitly, apologies) of "worse" to mean "worse value". For instance, reducing the quality by, say 10%, but reducing the price by 50% would probably be a good value for many students, I agree with that. My concern is that the quality would drop "more" than the price. This concern is partially motivated by my background. I used to work for a university doing academic technology-related stuff. In my opinion, many of the technologies that were being acquired didn't contribute much to the quality of the education offered (beyond looking sexy when prospective students came in for tours). However, the tech was often extremely expensive and, in fact, required additional fees in many cases.
Jun8 14y ago
I agree with your strategy to solve the actual problem (son't forget the predatory student loaning business), but that's like asking for a complete solution to the TSP (only half joking, social problems are wicked problems, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem, that may actually be harder to solve) whereas an approximate solution may suffice in its place or in the interim. I think the MOOC's present such a solution. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't attack the problem you mention, though.

jaibot 14y ago

Better argument: Isn't having free, high-quality lectures preferable, _for many people and in many contexts_, to the alternative, very expensive option? Even if it's not the exact level of quality, there's utility in not going broke.