We’re #3 on Paul Graham’s Frighteningly Ambitious Idea List

The whole concept of being able to mix real world (trade school) courses with heavy theory is a tricky question. We have traditional theory heavy courses in the pipeline, but realistically, it is extremely difficult to bootstrap with theoretical courses. It's been tried before and typically fails quickly. Oddly enough, you can give away theoretical classes, and you can charge $10,000 a class for them, but you can't really sell enough at our $200-$400 price point to pay for the cost of developing the class. We believe you can teach both, and should teach both, but I'm well aware that we'll always have people saying you can't or shouldn't even attempt to do so.

Oh, one note on the textbooks for the course. Of course there is an image issue when you use Oreilly and Apress texts, but honestly, for that subject there just aren't any traditional texts that come anywhere near the level needed to teach the subject. Even those three have serious holes that Dr. Ostrowski has worked with the authors to plug in this course. If you know of a better text that we somehow overlooked, please drop me a note and we'll see if we can integrate it as we create V2 of the course.

What a system like this really needs is a strong way for future employers of graduates to rate their relative ability (eg. 'according to our benchmarks this person's ability in python lies _x_ far between the average coder on github and [insert famous python user here]').

Perhaps establishing 'credentialing' should come before establishing a school?

More importantly, though, is the fact that since you only have 40 or so classroom hours in any class, and you have to teach to the average, it is extremely difficult to build up to a properly high level of skill in any particular subject. It feels hard while you are doing it, but after you graduate, you realize the people who have been focusing on the subject for a couple years are light years ahead of you. It's even more difficult to chain subject together to reach that high level. The closest thing we have is a generic 100,200,300 level system with some prerequisites.

How does this relate to just in time vs just in case? Even if you assume an identical breadth of knowledge, being able to sequence classes together in series instead of having semester and scheduling gaps means you go into the next class with more knowledge retained from the previous, which means you can build on your foundation in a more logical and efficient way and reach those higher levels that you just can't in a fragmented system. You can approach this from the ground up (building on higher and higher concepts), but the very nature of a JIT system means you can also approach it from the top down. That is, you can define the ends result or top level class, and then sequence each course to build up the fundamentals you need, just before you need them.

The point? If you are defining a broad base of skills, JIT allows you to master each one quicker and sequence them together to reach higher levels of mastery. If you need skills in the real world, JIT is the quickest and most efficient way to build those skills. The reason I consider disagreeing to be dangerously wrong, is that JIT is so much more effective at real education that those who bank on JIC for their future (students, schools, or countries) will find themselves left in the dustbin of history.

I can buy the fame for sure; the salary is harder: movie stars may be able to more effectively withhold their appearances/endorsement. Educators have more constraints on their withholding/spinning/endorsing behavior. But maybe!

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) Salman Khan is arguably this already (although he's not a "teacher" in the narrow, institutional sense) - he's managed to educate thousands of students rapidly, and he's raised a significant amount of capital for Khan Academy (not to mention attracted quite a bit of media attention)

2) The best private schools, I suspect, house many potential "superstar" teachers. The problem is that the schools have most of the reputational value and reap almost all of the financial rewards. In a lot of ways, it's an information asymmetry problem; I attended such a school and had what I would imagine to be a very disproportionately high number of superstar teachers, but I didn't know which teachers were superstars until after I had enrolled in the school and taken their courses.

How about a further prediction:

Once there are teacher superstars and they are considered a normal part of our culture the pressure to pander or appeal to the masses will result in the most famous being pretty crappy educators. It will be like politics and acting, superstar attributes are more important than teacher/leader/actor attributes.

Unless we get a really good way of measuring student performance somehow. If we can get that good enough then it becomes like sports, the superstars are actually among the best at what they are supposed to be doing. This is the optimistic prediction.

The first one is the realistic one.

I don't think you can beat the current universities by playing the game by the rules they've set up to manage their competition. Just seems like you've lost before you've even started.

Also, we have thought very seriously about the business model of offering classes for free (Udacity model) and charging for certification/one on one. The numbers we see for that model just don't work, even at a large scale. You have to focus in introductory classes with the broadest possible appeal, reduce the difficulty of the course so you don't get 10,000 complaint emails from students who can't keep up, use a MOOC structure that is more about cost control than maximizing learning. Plus, the conversion from free to paid user may or may not be enough to cover the cost of course development. Our model, on the other hand, allows us to pay our professors quite generously for classes that may not have 100,000 students attending and focus more on building our catalog instead of just building the user base.

Cost is actually the one area where we can compete very aggressively. Columbus state may be able to sneak under the $10k mark, but for an equivalent program we'll be just over $3k with a much more flexible and adaptable system. That number, btw, is with state and federal subsidies for the school, often upwards of $10,000 per student per year. We're coming in completely unsubsidized at a price that's less than a third of our cheapest competition with an offering that is significantly higher quality (we're competing with MIT for some of our professors).

Brand building really is the toughest nut to crack, and one what we have a couple different strategies for. Not really comfortable discussing those strategies on this forum, but let's just say we've thought a great deal about the problem.

If you look at the value proposition for a student, our web app class is extremely high. The material covered in that class can have a direct impact on job prospects, billing rates, or internal promotion opportunities, and it is such a difficult area to self teach that saving tens or hundreds of hours fighting though online tutorials is well worth the $200 or $400 that the class costs.