5 ms·

It's actually a dark day: 1) Until now, the majority of University-affiliated MOOCs have been free. This just changed. 2) I find it immensely frustrating that

by throwaway1979 13y ago

It's actually a dark day: 1) Until now, the majority of University-affiliated MOOCs have been free. This just changed. 2) I find it immensely frustrating that as CS people, we are lowering the bar for what it means to have a Masters degree in our field. I'd be happy with this sort of activity if it was being done in all other fields uniformly and/or we had unions representing CS workers. Unions, in principal aren't bad ... they are possibly the only way to protect older workers for example. I used to love the CS field because it always felt like a truly meritocracy. As I get older, I realize it is not. Let me make a third, controversial, and somewhat ungrounded statement: 3) MOOCs will kill CS research. Already CS research is in deep trouble. Exceedingly few private companies fund basic CS research. Academia was the last haven (if you can call it a haven - it was sad seeing the line of professors quitting their jobs to work for Google, and getting a pay raise and increase in respect for it). Govts exceedingly don't want to pay for basic research these days. Undergrad teaching used to be the way academics supported themselves. This is going the way of the dodo. But we are improving the lot of the CS undergrad you say! True .. but tell me what the poor grad student (who actually wants to get a PhD with the romantic notion of advancing the state of the art) going to do to support him/herself financially?

rsanders 13y ago
First off, the MOOCs associated with this degree will still be free. The degree is not. The change here is that a) an entire MS worth of course material (and the systems to support it) from a respected institution are being created, b) the actual (O)MS degree just became a great deal less expensive. It remains to be seen whether this lowers the bar or merely opens up more opportunities. I don't think education is a zero sum game. And while there may be a glut of PhDs, there is a shortage of employees with the advanced knowledge and skills in demand now. That's why e.g. AT&T is pushing this program. While the union issue and age discrimination are interesting and important topics, CS graduates don't have a lot to complain about economically. The field has maintained high employment and excellent compensation during recent times when many other professions suffered greatly. Now, at 40 I don't expect to get funded by Y Combinator because I've almost certainly suffered crippling age-related innovation dementia, but there are plenty of employers that don't think that way. There have been several articles posted here about the glut of PhDs versus available faculty positions. And actual instruction is a pretty small part of what full professors are expected to do. If you aren't pulling in research grants, your career is on a weak trajectory. So the problem was already there, and I don't think this seriously affects it one way or the other. One might hope that making education available and practical to many more people at much lower costs might actually help advance the field, both within and without the ivory tower.
- throwaway1979 13y ago
  You're right that many things about this experiment remain to be seen. You make some very good, optimistic arguments and I hope we get to that future. I fear we won't I absolutely agree that education is not a zero sum game. I actually find it sad that most education has become about job training or making money. Whatever happened to curiosity and knowledge for its own sake? But let me not get into that debate. Degrees and credentialing might be zero-sum, however. < actual instruction is a pretty small part of what full professors are expected to do. Similarly, the majority of what students pay in tuition goes towards anything other than the salaries and funding of professors. Also, there is a big difference between top-10 schools which run based on a lot of grant money and smaller teaching institutions. Look, I think I'm on the losing side of the wider argument. I am all for free access to knowledge. I'm just pointing out that we are likely shooting ourselves in the foot in the long-term. < One might hope that making education available and practical to many more people at much lower costs might actually help advance the field, both within and without the ivory tower. This is the best sentence in your response (upvoted you btw). I really hope so.
drharris 13y ago
The courses are still free, as per the announcement. However, to be on the actual degree track, you pay a nominal amount of money. I think this arrangement is quite reasonable. Information should be free; credentials should cost a bit.
jdreaver 13y ago
I totally disagree. What this gives students is a choice. > 1) Until now, the majority of University-affiliated MOOCs have been free. This just changed. You can take a free MOOC or a paid one. > 2) I find it immensely frustrating that as CS people, we are lowering the bar for what it means to have a Masters degree in our field. This provides the opportunity for thousands of people to obtain there master's degree without wasting large sums of money on tuition and upending their life for a couple years. If helping thousands of people means "lowering the bar," then so be it. Learning isn't a competition. > 3) MOOCs will kill CS research. I think the real reason CS research is dying is because the business model of academia is outdated (which, incidentally, is what Udacity et al are trying to fix). If I could have gotten my BS online for $5000, there is no way I would have gone to a physical institution. > Undergrad teaching used to be the way academics supported themselves. Right, and now I'm happy I can actually pay for my education directly without paying ridiculous amounts of money just to subsidize an outdated system. To call this a "dark day" is a slap in the face to those who are trying to make education available to everyone.
auctiontheory 13y ago
How do you know GT is lowering the bar? For all we know, they are sensitive to brand perception and are raising the bar - of work to be done, and expertise to be demonstrated, as opposed to butt-in-seat time. This has no connection to CS research. Terminal MS students (in most disciplines, not just CS) are not on a research track anyway.

rsanders 13y ago

First off, the MOOCs associated with this degree will still be free. The degree is not. The change here is that a) an entire MS worth of course material (and the systems to support it) from a respected institution are being created, b) the actual (O)MS degree just became a great deal less expensive. It remains to be seen whether this lowers the bar or merely opens up more opportunities. I don't think education is a zero sum game. And while there may be a glut of PhDs, there is a shortage of employees with the advanced knowledge and skills in demand now. That's why e.g. AT&T is pushing this program. While the union issue and age discrimination are interesting and important topics, CS graduates don't have a lot to complain about economically. The field has maintained high employment and excellent compensation during recent times when many other professions suffered greatly. Now, at 40 I don't expect to get funded by Y Combinator because I've almost certainly suffered crippling age-related innovation dementia, but there are plenty of employers that don't think that way. There have been several articles posted here about the glut of PhDs versus available faculty positions. And actual instruction is a pretty small part of what full professors are expected to do. If you aren't pulling in research grants, your career is on a weak trajectory. So the problem was already there, and I don't think this seriously affects it one way or the other. One might hope that making education available and practical to many more people at much lower costs might actually help advance the field, both within and without the ivory tower.

throwaway1979 13y ago
You're right that many things about this experiment remain to be seen. You make some very good, optimistic arguments and I hope we get to that future. I fear we won't I absolutely agree that education is not a zero sum game. I actually find it sad that most education has become about job training or making money. Whatever happened to curiosity and knowledge for its own sake? But let me not get into that debate. Degrees and credentialing might be zero-sum, however. < actual instruction is a pretty small part of what full professors are expected to do. Similarly, the majority of what students pay in tuition goes towards anything other than the salaries and funding of professors. Also, there is a big difference between top-10 schools which run based on a lot of grant money and smaller teaching institutions. Look, I think I'm on the losing side of the wider argument. I am all for free access to knowledge. I'm just pointing out that we are likely shooting ourselves in the foot in the long-term. < One might hope that making education available and practical to many more people at much lower costs might actually help advance the field, both within and without the ivory tower. This is the best sentence in your response (upvoted you btw). I really hope so.

drharris 13y ago

The courses are still free, as per the announcement. However, to be on the actual degree track, you pay a nominal amount of money. I think this arrangement is quite reasonable. Information should be free; credentials should cost a bit.

jdreaver 13y ago

I totally disagree. What this gives students is a choice. > 1) Until now, the majority of University-affiliated MOOCs have been free. This just changed. You can take a free MOOC or a paid one. > 2) I find it immensely frustrating that as CS people, we are lowering the bar for what it means to have a Masters degree in our field. This provides the opportunity for thousands of people to obtain there master's degree without wasting large sums of money on tuition and upending their life for a couple years. If helping thousands of people means "lowering the bar," then so be it. Learning isn't a competition. > 3) MOOCs will kill CS research. I think the real reason CS research is dying is because the business model of academia is outdated (which, incidentally, is what Udacity et al are trying to fix). If I could have gotten my BS online for $5000, there is no way I would have gone to a physical institution. > Undergrad teaching used to be the way academics supported themselves. Right, and now I'm happy I can actually pay for my education directly without paying ridiculous amounts of money just to subsidize an outdated system. To call this a "dark day" is a slap in the face to those who are trying to make education available to everyone.

auctiontheory 13y ago

How do you know GT is lowering the bar? For all we know, they are sensitive to brand perception and are raising the bar - of work to be done, and expertise to be demonstrated, as opposed to butt-in-seat time. This has no connection to CS research. Terminal MS students (in most disciplines, not just CS) are not on a research track anyway.