MITx Could Revolutionize Higher Education
From today's Chronicle of Higher Education:
"MIT has invented or improved many world-changing things—radar, information theory, and synthetic self-replicating molecules, to name a few. Last month the university announced, to mild fanfare, an invention that could be similarly transformative, this time for higher education itself. It's called MITx. In that small lowercase letter, a great deal is contained.
MITx is the next big step in the open-educational-resources movement that MIT helped start in 2001, when it began putting its course lecture notes, videos, and exams online, where anyone in the world could use them at no cost. The project exceeded all expectations—more than 100 million unique visitors have accessed the courses so far.
Meanwhile, the university experimented with using online tools to help improve the learning experience for its own students in Cambridge, Mass. Now MIT has decided to put the two together—free content and sophisticated online pedagogy—and add a third, crucial ingredient: credentials. Beginning this spring, students will be able to take free, online courses offered through the MITx initiative. If they prove they've learned the material, MITx will, for a small fee, give them a credential certifying as much.
In doing this, MIT has cracked one of the fundamental problems retarding the growth of free online higher education as a force for human progress. The Internet is a very different environment than the traditional on-campus classroom. Students and employers are rightly wary of the quality of online courses. And even if the courses are great, they have limited value without some kind of credential to back them up. It's not enough to learn something—you have to be able to prove to other people that you've learned it. The best way to solve that problem is for a world-famous university with an unimpeachable reputation to put its brand and credibility behind open-education resources and credentials to match."
MITx is the next big step in the open-educational-resources movement that MIT helped start in 2001, when it began putting its course lecture notes, videos, and exams online, where anyone in the world could use them at no cost. The project exceeded all expectations—more than 100 million unique visitors have accessed the courses so far.
Meanwhile, the university experimented with using online tools to help improve the learning experience for its own students in Cambridge, Mass. Now MIT has decided to put the two together—free content and sophisticated online pedagogy—and add a third, crucial ingredient: credentials. Beginning this spring, students will be able to take free, online courses offered through the MITx initiative. If they prove they've learned the material, MITx will, for a small fee, give them a credential certifying as much.
In doing this, MIT has cracked one of the fundamental problems retarding the growth of free online higher education as a force for human progress. The Internet is a very different environment than the traditional on-campus classroom. Students and employers are rightly wary of the quality of online courses. And even if the courses are great, they have limited value without some kind of credential to back them up. It's not enough to learn something—you have to be able to prove to other people that you've learned it. The best way to solve that problem is for a world-famous university with an unimpeachable reputation to put its brand and credibility behind open-education resources and credentials to match."
MP: This development has the potential to be big, very, very big.
Update: Here's a news release from MIT, with a list of FAQs.
Update: Here's a news release from MIT, with a list of FAQs.
32 Comments:
I agree. This will revolutionize higher education as we know it.
O.K. so what's a certificate from this MIT worth in the jobs market?
Anyone know?
" If they prove they've learned the material, MITx will, for a small fee, give them a credential certifying as much."
How is it proved that one has learned the material?
On-line certifications usually involve periodic in-person exam proctoring, group participation and other validations of knowledge competency. Will MIT hire local representatives or recruit volunteers in different locals.
Professor Perry had done an excellent job of informing readers of higer ed on-line coursework.
BTW,
In February, I am signed-up to take Computer Science 101 from Stanford. This course is open to anyone(duh). It should be interesting, and be what I consider continuing ed for myself.
"O.K. so what's a certificate from this MIT worth in the jobs market?
Anyone know?"
right now, zero.
in the future, maybe a little bit.
would likely look great on a college application.
but it's important to realize that "took and passed 20 courses from MIT online" is not going to replace "BS from MIT".
part of the reason employers like grads from top schools is that it outsources very detailed screening that their HR could never do.
the process of getting into MIT is a big deal. they look you over very carefully and screen in great detail and with very high standards.
the HR department at morgan stanley cannot do this, certainly not at that kind of scale.
so they value the initial screen greatly.
just taking the courses is not the same. you are not validated the same way.
in many ways, getting in is the big deal, not graduating.
The government needs to establish a set of standardized tests for credentials in every field, similar to the CPA exam for accountants or the Bar exam for lawyers. This would serve to level the playing filed between institutions of higher learning by placing value in individual competency and not in the reputation or stature of the school that someone has attended. Overnight, college would become more than an extension of childhood since having earned a degree would mean nothing without passing the exam and securing a credential.
This system would allow people the opportunity to study at their own pace, at home, taking the test when they believe that they have acquired the requisite knowledge. The cost of education would collapse. Small businesses would spring up to offer tutoring and exam prep, while hundreds of colleges would simply disappear. Thousands of tenured radicals, unable to require students to take courses in their worthless fields, would find themselves pursuing employment in the fast food sector. And employers would be more certain of the abilities of those they hire.
My guess is you have standardized tests, making sure the tested are who they say they are (excellent ID), and of course, you have to be tested in person.
The Internet has the power to make the world's knowledge available to anyone. I hope the day comes when all books, and technical papers etc. are online.
What a wonderful creation.
It is a step in the right direction, but it won't make a difference until/unless they offer a degree progam. A true solution to the tuition spiral would be the following:
Obama (or the next president) signs an executive order stipulating that all universities
who want to continue to receive federal funding must do the following:
a) Build and offer online equivalents for at least 50% of their undergraduate degrees;
b) admit anyone who meets the minimum GPA and SAT requirements they use for admission to their on-campus programs(can vary by school);
c) make NO DISTINCTION at all between the online vs on-campus degrees awarded;
d) and maybe (but probably not necessary in the long run) set the tuition equal to one half the salary of the average graduate teaching assistant.
Here is the win-win-win result:
A. More prospective students gain access to prestigious universities
B. Struggling middle class families see tuitions drop for online alternatives initially and on-campus versions long term due to price competition
C. Top universities and their professors gain wider influence
D. Top universities gain a windfall of revenue. At the cost of some dilution of their brands, which they would not do unprompted due to prisoners dilemna (which is what keeps MIT from doing it now), but when done together would have limited relative effect on school reputations.
E. America boosts its human capital due to wider access
F. Obama is a hero for relieving this vexing problem for family budgets
G. If he put a 3 year deadline on having the propgrams in place and a stipulation to use US firms and coders, it could be a jobs program fit for today, unlike roads etc which bring low-wage jobs
The only losers are 3rd tier colleges.
Colleges are vastly overpriced and require a huge investment of time, locking out many who are worthy. Too many people are going to college, about half of HS graduates, about 1/3 of whom need remediation. We spend way too much on education, especially given the quality it produces. We give too much credence to college degrees, especially for crib course, functionally useless fields.
We need far more in the way of certification credentials which measure specific skills. We need this type of online course for technical fields, too.
The value of this type of program will be determined by employers and their HR departments. I bet it works well.
che-
"The government needs to establish a set of standardized tests for credentials in every field, similar to the CPA exam for accountants or the Bar exam for lawyers"
that seems like a strategy with some dangerous side effects. it tends to create teaching to a test (like in japan) and the stifling of creative and independent thought based curricula.
and do we really need MORE federal interference in professional accreditation?
it seems like such a thing could be useful as a credential, but very worrying as a necessary pre req (like passing the bar).
but my real fear is letting the government define competence.
do you really trust them to tell you who is a good psychologist or a talented computer engineer?
they wouldn't even know how to keep up in a rapidly changing field. the computer science accreditation would still be based on cobol.
This won't revolutionize anything. Course materials, tests, video recordings of lectures for a course etc have been available from a variety of institutions, or individual professors, for years. IIT has hundreds of courses recorded and posted on youtube, for example.
Also, you don't get MIT credit for completing these courses. You get a "certificate of completion" issued by another body. Yep. This sort of stuff has been available for a long time already.
IE..if you don't get INTO MIT, you don't get credit from MIT (and probably not even an actual grade that can count towards a degree)
Point being, MIT is an institution that can only afford to put such info online (or IIT, or whoever else does this), because it has such immense success in the "traditional" education method. And its not particularly revolutionary in any way except that it takes existing systems that almost every university uses (ie online course materials), and opens it up to the public (which also isn't anything new, since a lot of professors already put this material on their websites for free)
We've heard for the past 10 years, at least, about how higher education is going to go the "wikipedia" rout and traditional degrees and traditional education is all outdated etc etc.
Yet we have seen nothing of the sort occurring. Quite the contrary. What we have seen is a parallel market of "online schools" which can't get accreditation and which are in most cases, degree mills.
On the other hand we've seen "traditional" high-quality schools differentiate themselves by focusing on research and partnerships with industry.
And then we have a third group of mid-level schools stuck somewhere in the middle.
But no revolution, in that the VALUE-creating degrees, institutions and students, are still...and increasingly...concentrated in the traditional research-focused institutions.
Again, the operative word here being...VALUE-creating.
Now you'd think that after a decade of evidence on how the higher ed market is layering itself, the certain segment that continuously complains about traditional education would draw some lessons or conclusions (unfortunately this segment tends to concentrate itself in Libertarian-right wing types...even though it makes absolutely no sense).
You'd think, that after a decade of evidence, such proponents would take a look at the thousands of online educational institutions and ask a simple question: what is the track record of value creation? Why do such institutions fail to get accreditation? Why do employers not change their preferences to consider such degrees equally with others?
These are real questions. In my opinion, the main thing such people miss in their calculation...is the VALUE the employer gets. They just don't get that the EMPLOYER is the customer of the education, not the student.
Che: "Thousands of tenured radicals, unable to require students to take courses in their worthless fields, would find themselves pursuing employment in the fast food sector. And employers would be more certain of the abilities of those they hire."
I'm not so sure. Fast food employers would likely require additional screening to ensure that the wave of new applicants had the skills required for entry level positions in that sector.
aig-
agreed.
what's more, we have seen the value of a degree from the top schools continue to diverge from that of the middle and lower tiers.
the trend is toward more selectivity and stratification, not leveling.
these "wiki-education" proponents have been 180 degrees wrong on the major trend.
"that seems like a strategy with some dangerous side effects. it tends to create teaching to a test (like in japan) and the stifling of creative and independent thought based curricula." -- morganovich
The tests could be devised with the input of those with expertise in the field in question and designed to show that an individual has attained a certain level of knowledge and competency. Government recognition of such a credentials would simply give them currency. "Creative and independent thought based curricula" , if it has any true value, would be something that students would be willing to pay a premium for and employers would look for in addition to, not instead of, a credential.
"my real fear is letting the government define competence ... do you really trust them to tell you who is a good psychologist or a talented computer engineer?" -- morganovich
No, and I do not have to. The credential speaks to the attainment of a certain level of knowledge not to what an individual is capable of doing with that knowledge. Competency will be determined by employers, or, if the individual goes into business on his own by the market, just as it is now. The difference will be that the colleges and universities would see their roles as gatekeepers and determiners of an individuals fate drastically diminished. Individual drive and intelligence would become a more important factor.
"right now, zero.
in the future, maybe a little bit"...
Yeah morganovich that was sort of my thought also...
"My guess is you have standardized tests, making sure the tested are who they say they are (excellent ID), and of course, you have to be tested in person"...
Yeah, pseudo benny I was thinking along the lines of getting something similer to a Novell networking certificate or an MCSE certificate...
"You'd think, that after a decade of evidence, such proponents would take a look at the thousands of online educational institutions and ask a simple question: what is the track record of value creation? Why do such institutions fail to get accreditation? Why do employers not change their preferences to consider such degrees equally with others?" -- AIG
These institutions represent a considerable threat to the status quo, and as such they are routinely denied accreditation. Establishing a process that allows students studying at these universities to demonstrate that they have acquired a certain level of knowledge through the attainment of a recognized credential will end this game and assure potential students and employers that these institutions do in fact create value.
"what's more, we have seen the value of a degree from the top schools continue to diverge from that of the middle and lower tiers.
the trend is toward more selectivity and stratification, not leveling."
Completely agree. Why is it that these proponents don't want to look at the evidence of the past 10 years, but instead look at hypothetical future scenarios?
"These institutions represent a considerable threat to the status quo, and as such they are routinely denied accreditation."
Of course not. More importantly, why do employers, the ultimate customers of these degrees, not value them equally?
"Establishing a process that allows students studying at these universities to demonstrate that they have acquired a certain level of knowledge through the attainment of a recognized credential will end this game and assure potential students and employers that these institutions do in fact create value."
Millions of people have graduated from online institutions over the years. Millions of them have entered the workforce. Employers have had plenty of time to differentiate and determine the value of such degrees.
And yet?
What do these schools lack in terms of a "process" to demonstrate their value? They give out tests, they give out degrees. They have the same processes of testing and awarding degrees as all other schools.
But the ultimate test is always, the employer. Employers differentiate! Clearly this is done for a reason. What's the reason, according to you?
"But the ultimate test is always, the employer. Employers differentiate! Clearly this is done for a reason. What's the reason, according to you?"
The reason is that employers are human, and humans are very susceptible/receptive to brands. That is why a solution that provides branded online equivalents, like I outlined above, is the only true way out of the current spiral.
And I'm not trying to knock down the value of such online degrees. Most of them are well priced for what they deliver, because as with most things, you pay for what you get (despite the insistence of some on this blog and elsewhere that this is not the case in academia anymore. I happen to disagree)
But it is important to recognize the place where such degrees fit in. In a lot of cases, they fit in as degrees earned by working professionals to advance in a particular career. They have little to no value, in these cases, outside of that individual's established job position and company.
For example, here where I work, some people have taken online MBA degrees as a means of advancing into another career level. The reason being that an MBA is required to advance to that level, and an online one is the easiest, cheapest and most accessible degree for people who work full time. But that degree has zero value outside.
And the reason is simple: the online MBA some people have taken here is a 9 month degree consisting of 5 classes. Now, nowhere in the world do 5 introductory classes constitute an MBA degree!
IE...this is a piece of paper which you pay a few thousand dollars to get, so that you can fulfill an administrative requirement at an employer that already knows you and is going to promote you based on other requirements than your piece of paper.
But take that piece of paper outside, and try to get a job? The simplest test would be to compare me, what I gained from my "traditional" MBA, what I can bring to the table...with what they can. That is a test that these degrees will consistently fail. And the market knows this, prices them accordingly, and employers hire accordingly.
"The reason is that employers are human, and humans are very susceptible/receptive to brands. That is why a solution that provides branded online equivalents, like I outlined above, is the only true way out of the current spiral."
1) Simply because the established conclusion of some people here is that there is a "spiral", "bubble" or whatever in higher education, doesn't mean there is. I happen to disagree entirely, and think instead that what we are seeing is the market demand for higher skills and value.
2) Your suggestion is, sorry to say, unrealistic. There IS a difference between an online education and a traditional education, and this difference becomes more acute the more advanced this education becomes.
3) So your assumption is that most employers in the US are smart enough to make profitable products and services, but aren't smart enough to have recognized what type of employees to hire? I ain't buying this.
che-
i think you are being awfully optimistic.
you want a government sponsored test developed with the input of an industry or trade group and that can change and keep up with the times in any industry that has significant innovation?
that's just never going to happen. with that many people pushing and pulling on input and dueling bureaucracies, you'll get little done, incompetence, corruption, and all manner of influence peddling.
i also think you underestimate the extent to which teaching to a test and really learning a topic are in conflict with one another. i know that a lot of the professors i had for AP classes in high school felt that way.
"The credential speaks to the attainment of a certain level of knowledge not to what an individual is capable of doing with that knowledge. Competency will be determined by employers, or, if the individual goes into business on his own by the market, just as it is now."
but just what that level of knowledge is is the key. great, you passed a test demonstrating competence in programming languages that are out of date. who cares?
such a credential is only as good as its test.
this leads to serious problems. the legal profession and the ama use the bar and boards like guilds.
it winds up being anti-competitive.
i think you need to be very careful heading down this road.
"Simply because the established conclusion of some people here is that there is a "spiral", "bubble" or whatever in higher education, doesn't mean there is. I happen to disagree entirely, and think instead that what we are seeing is the market demand for higher skills and value."
I suspect you do not have children nearing university age. The degree that cost me $2,500 per year out of state 25 years ago, will cost my kids $25,000 per year now. What is your definition of a spiral?
I admire your libertarian instincts, but you seem to confuse the difference between the signaling power of a brand, and the actual differences in education content at the different Universities. Having gone to a mid-level state university for undergraduate, a high-end state university for my Masters, and Stanford University for my Ph.D., I can attest that the educational content differences are minor. However, I did enjoy the signaling advantages coming out of Stanford. It is those signaling advantages that drive parents to pay up for these branded schools.
Yes, those individual kids are getting an ROI on their parents' investments because they benefit from the signaling, but the branding and artificial scarcity is allowing the top universities to extract rents that are significanlty out of sync with the value they produce.
atlanta dude-
"The reason is that employers are human, and humans are very susceptible/receptive to brands. That is why a solution that provides branded online equivalents, like I outlined above, is the only true way out of the current spiral."
nonsense.
your whole argument is self refuting. if you think they are so "susceptible" to brands (a framing i think is totally wrong) and so good at discriminating, then why would they not do the same with distance learning?
no one confuses amrmani exchange cargo pants with black label giorgio armani. yet suddenly, you expect them to be unable to discern the difference between a guy who got into MIT through their rigorous admission process and a guy who snuck in the back door by using distance learning?
such a degree is far less selective. you seem argue for brand discernment when it suits you, but then ignore it when it doesn't.
you also seem to have the wrong idea about brands. brands are not about finding "susceptible" consumers, they are about protecting consumers. that's where they came from. it's not worth it to porsche to dupe you and sell you a crap car. their brand is too valuable. so it protects you. you know what you are getting, just as you know just what a big mac is going to be like.
but within a brand (say, mercedes) there can be many levels. there is the c class entry level all the way up to AMG and the maclaren collaborations. consumers know the difference and value them accordingly. no one mistakes the c class for and sls amg.
education will be the same exact way. you are ignoring my earlier point that much of the value in an MIT degree comes from getting into MIT in the first place. take that away and the value goes with it.
employers will be perfectly able to discern between the 2 types of degree and will treat those possessing them differently just as consumers know that not all mercedes are alike.
"Your suggestion is, sorry to say, unrealistic."
OK. Always open to input. Is it unrealistic because:
A) It can't be done (if so, please let me know why, so I can perhaps adjust the plan)
B) It would have some negative impacts on society (if so, what are they)
Thanks for your help.
"you are ignoring my earlier point that much of the value in an MIT degree comes from getting into MIT in the first place. take that away and the value goes with it."
Actually no. That is what signaling means. You got into MIT, so that signals that you are intelligent and work hard. But the problem is that it is a very blunt instrument that largely measures how someone behaved when they were 18. I don't blame employers for using it, because they have little else to go on.
The problem is that the reliance on this highly imperfect signaling device simply reinforces the value of the brands, and the branding power drives up the pricing power of the top universities.
By diluting the brands via my plan, employers would have to find other (and likely eventually better) evaluation criteria, and we could stop paying ~$200K+, after tax, so our kids can punch the right ticket.
"but the branding and artificial scarcity is allowing the top universities to extract rents that are significanlty out of sync with the value they produce."
such a state (if true) cannot persist for long. if they are too expensive for what they are, demand will drop, just like if you priced a honda civic like a 911 turbo.
you seem to include a lot of statist sentiments in your arguments. first off, you seem willing to dictate what price/value is for others. second, you seem to feel a need for a mandated solution. third, you use terms like "artificial scarcity" that are simply not true. places at harvard are scarce, sure, but to call that artificial is absurd. the whole point is that they are scarce. if they weren't such places would not have value. getting in is in itself a credential. take that away, and future employers will have a much more difficult time sifting students.
finally, calling it a "rent" seems poor phrasing. they are hardly rent seeking. they provide a service and accreditation and you are free to use it or not. prospective employers are free to value that accreditation any way they like. if there is such endemic overpricing to value as you describe, then both sides should adjust.
you seem to pay lip service to liberty, but it seem to me that what you really want is to be able to mitigate it and dictate outcomes to get the result you want because you do not agree with what the market is saying.
alanta-
but it doesn't "dilute" the brand. you are still trying to have you cake and eat it too.
the availability of amrami exchange does not dilute giorgio armani. consumers are quite able to discern the difference and pay 10-30X more for the latter.
MIT and MITx will be just the same.
your whole premise seems based on the people you claim to be so discerning on brand to suddenly be unable to tell sub brands apart.
that is not going to be the case.
what you describe as a "very blunt instrument" is the best one they have. the one you suggest is even blunter.
differences in ability tend to show up over the course of a career, but as someone who used to hire a lot of 22 year olds, let me tell you, they are not easy to tell apart on paper. hiring someone with 6 years of work experience is very different, but there is a reason employers value the students from the most selective schools, and that is the selectivity itself.
that is not going to change.
the signaling you describe is not going to work the way you claim.
MIT sends a giorgio signal, MITx an armani exchange signal.
you have not been vetted the same way.
your whole argument is still self refuting.
if brands matter, then the online vs on campus brands will matter too. to the extent that they are different, people will behave as they are.
you cannot have it both ways.
Morganovich:
Thanks for the feedback. I think you may have missed a key point in my original post - which calls for the universities to NOT differentiate the online diploma from the campus diploma.
I think that may be the source of some of the rest of your critique as well.
I do not argue with your claim that the solution is somewhat "statist". However, I view the system as being currently hostage to a couple of "prisoners dilemna" type situations, and think it could use a nudge to break out of it. Still, I agree that that is a statist attitude.
I also think there is a flaw in the Armani analogy. If demand goes up for suits, they can make more. The universities, as constructed, can only take on a limited number of students. Perhaps I was inaccurate by referring to this as "artificial" scarcity. Maybe I should have phrased it as "no longer necessary scarcity". By introducing an online equivalent, the limit on the number of students the university can handle largely goes away.
And note that my plan does not call for the universities to lower their minimum standards. Instead, they are required to let everyone in that clears the bar on SAT/GPA. The bar is set by them.
Interesting concept in the article and good comments. The key is that because of the higher education bubble many different alternative approaches are going to be tried. Some will work and some will not. The real value of the discussion, to me, is that out of this will will finally put a value on higher education and what exactly is higher education. The only certain thing is that it isn't what it is now.
This might not help you get a job the same way a degree does, but it might help you pass a job profeciency test (which you are seeing more and more in computer technical fields) and more importantly, it will help people that don't want a job, they want to start a business or invent something. This may eventually lead to the idea that you don't need a degree to be expert in your field. I can imagine certain types of people that will live in their parent's basement, take these courses, and invent something great and get rich. THAT is the revolution!
Let me begin by saying, this MIT effort won't go anywhere. At least half of the coursework that MIT makes you study is crap, simply slapping it online and making more people go through it changes nothing. The fundamental problem is that the universities are so ignorant of what should be learnt that they will never be able to figure the online market out. That is why it will take new entrepreneurs to get this done.
As for the usual apologists for the university scam, morganovich and AIG, their arguments are beyond stupid. The notion that Morgan Stanley couldn't do what little vetting MIT does, mostly relying on GPA and standardized tests, is so ridiculous it's laughable. X) As for AIG's claim that we have "a decade of evidence" that online education hasn't won, that would be like saying in 2001 that we have a decade of evidence that no search engine will ever make much money, the prevailing wisdom at the time. Well, Google finally turned a profit in late 2001 and the rest, as they say, is history. We didn't even have widespread online video till 2006, when Flash video finally took off and all the video websites with it (there may have been small Quicktime videos and the like online a decade before, but most residential internet connections couldn't handle much online video back then).
You two sound like the music and newspaper companies a decade ago, "Well, we survived a decade of this internet thing, so we won! We'll be around forever!" Lol, keep repeating that idiotic argument: it's going to be even funnier when the universities are getting closed left and right within a decade or so, just like all the music executives and newspaper journalists are getting fired left and right today. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home