MIT launches free online 'fully automated' course
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
This increases the value of the certificate as proof of knowledge and competence. Let's imagine that MIT offered 20 engineering courses in this format. You go through the effort of honestly taking these courses and add them to your resume. A potential employer says:
"Well, these courses are really rigorous -- much more so than those for-profit online 'universities'. While MIT will allow me to verify that a single online account holder claiming to be this person completed these courses, there's no proof that you didn't cheat or pay people to take the tests for you. Just look at how many CS homework projects are listed on Rent-a-Coder! I have to bring this person into my office and check them out myself to be sure."
I have argued previously that this "checking out" process isn't so expensive that an impressive resume would be passed over, and I still think this. However, what if a student had the option of paying a fee to take a test at an approved testing center which would check identification, take a photo of the student (available on MIT's site along with the course certificates), and ensure that this person took the test himself? Those taking actuarial exams and such already take tests at such locations. For those who didn't want to pay, lived somewhere without such centers, etc., certificates could be given which would have a lower level of authentication. If you are taking the time to complete a course and want to prove to others that you did not cheat, wouldn't it be worth paying an extra $100?
I personally think this is the best circuit simulation to learn the basics of college level analog and digital circuits (it is animated), but I highly doubt the MIT course will be using it: http://falstad.com/circuit/
I used a customized version of it in my own research, and within minutes engineering students (who had already finished their intro circuits classes but still showed misconceptions) were better understanding the behavior of circuits: http://usu.academia.edu/edtechdev/Papers/161483/Designing_An...
I'm having trouble coming up with any "intro"-level work that cannot be effectively handled in this way. Solve the likely engagement issues (perhaps with well-designed gamification), and suddenly you've replaced all 100-level university courses -- freeing professors to teach the interesting stuff.
As for the English example, you'd probably run into that problem for all types of writing-intensive courses. That seems like potentially a major gap in this entire model of learning. Multiple-choice and defined-output problem solving sometimes just can't cut it...
On top of this, many of the course are just lecture notes. My experience has been that the lecture notes aren't much better than a good e-book.
I'm really excited for the OCW Scholar program (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ocw-scholar/) to expand more, as they offer screencasts, problem sets, and the rest of a fully automated learning package.
>In order to succeed in this course, you must have taken an AP level physics course in electricity and magnetism.
Do high schools actually offer AP EE Physics classes? I went to a blue ribbon high school and they sure as hell didn't offer anything that specific at that advanced of a level. Even the university I went to had EE Physics as a 200 level class.
I want to try this, but...I never studied electromagnetism or linear algebra. Is it feasible to pick up enough of those to get through the course (the docs mention remedial math is included).
If it is possible to learn those quickly, where should one start? Perhaps the relevant OCW courses?
The AP physics curriculum has AP Physics B, AP Physics C (Mechanics), and AP Physics C (Electricity and Magnetism). At my high school (a fairly well-off public high school), in the AP Physics class, we were supposed to do both Mechanics and E&M, but we fell behind and had only just started E&M by the time the test rolled around. Some people just took the mechanics test; I took both, and got a 5, but the college I went to didn't accept AP Physics for credit, just for placement in the honors physics track. In college, E&M was the second-semester physics class in the honors track.
So, I don't think it's too unusual to expect a talented high school student or first or second year college student to have taken an E&M course.
A lot of people are picking up on that. I didn't type the whole name out partially because I didn't know a better, standardized abbreviation for it, and partly because I was typing on my phone at the time and didn't want to spell it all out. I hoped everyone would know what I meant, but apparently not. My blue ribbon high school didn't have E&M physics classes.
What do you guys think?
But I'm curious how they'll solve the "mechanisms for identity checks". What could they do? If they wanna do real lab exercises and not software simulation, then both are similar problems. I can imagine either using a camera, like you said, or partnering with local schools around the world.
Both have many flaws, let's see what they come up with.
It just seems like a lot of work for a certificate that might not carry much, if any, real weight. There are a good number of online degree programs where your work will actually go towards a degree.
The model I'd love to see goes something like this: Enroll in MITx. Study on your own. Pass. Then, on an annual basis, there's an opportunity to come to MIT, take a test, do some labs and get credit and grade on the real class towards a degree. People from all over the world would be open to that approach.
Now, if all you want is the knowledge while participating in a really neat experiment, by all means, full steam ahead.
For companies doing research that want to send their staff to these programs the main benefit is they want their researchers to have a top notch education in the area, but the cons are that the courses are very expensive and you have to have your employee off campus for however many hours a week the class is. Now it's possible pay nothing, have your staff stay in the office, and still be taught by world class experts.
I'm sure Google has a reasonable number of employees that are great programmers but could probably benefit from some formal CS background. Now they can keep these people on campus, and give them access to great materials for free (and even if there is a cost for these eventually it will be much lower), and get them training by world-class experts.
In this scenario a certificate is all you really need since the employer can say "I at least know you put some actual effort into this". Many companies don't necessarily need more employees with CS masters, but would certainly like more people with a foundation in nlp or ml. The structure of these courses essentially allows research companies the option to create an 'in-house' degree, covering only the material they find competitively beneficial.
Credentials are completely useless in this field. They mean nothing. No one wants to see them, unless you are trying to emigrate to another country and have to prove you have a degree.
The reason one takes classes at MIT or Stanford is because they are known to have really good programs. The degree doesn't matter. The certificate doesn't matter. After you graduate, no one cares about that stuff.
Sure, it's on my CV. But I could say I had a law degree from Harvard there as well, just listing something proves little. It's been some time since I actually used a CV in my career, but when I did there was not once an attempt to validate any claims, my skills and talents were evaluated from the thinking I demonstrated and rapport I established in each interview, not from validation of credentials which never once happened.
"Do those approaching you with proposals for work know that you went to Stanford?"
Those who approach me and talk to me don't know anything about my education as far as I know, it's just not been discussed in years, my reputation and track record are what is important. I wouldn't even mention it here except as an example of a credential which I think that most assume is a big deal, but which in reality, practice, and life experience doesn't mean anything at all.
Hm, wracking my brain here to think who knows where I went to school. I'm pretty sure no one I work with. My (life) partner knows, but only because I'm sure it's come up in conversation, it's probably been years since I've even discussed it.
Anyway, the point of this is I see the potential of these classes as immense and able to change the world. I am also a bit cynical that that will happen. The power of an elite, expensive certification as a validation of class and not talent is too valuable. MIT is now saying (on their MITx web page) they intend to, after working out the kinks, start offering credentials with their MITx program and "validating" students identity. How this will work internationally one can only imagine. Remote classes can't really be validated as to who took the class: it's impossible unless they plan to monitor each student via a video camera, which is unlikely. Given that "identity validation" proves little, why even bother with it? Why not just allow anyone to take the class, given that it is intended to be free -- if education is the goal. But if certification is the goal and not education, then identity is very important since it's the certification and not what you know and what you can do that is important.