Udacity offers new classes from this summer

That's very true. You can get some level of social interaction online, but it's not a substitute for the college experience.

It would still be amazing for people who otherwise had no chance at a degree to be able to do so through OCW.

Even the ability to earn some degree credits online, and then apply them to a shortened on-campus degree program would be a huge leap forward.

Yes, this seems like a much more appropriate progression than imposing the credit-degree system on online education. A standardized test would assess the depth of one's knowledge, with proper validation and scoring to allow one to compare any one test-taker to another. It's also more meritocratic, because as it is, one might be forced to compare the grades of say, a Stanford grad with that of a Cal State grad, and there's no easy way to compare the two given the potential differences in course content, difficulty, grade inflation, peer competitiveness, etc. With a way to objectively compare students, the value of a prestige degree, decoupled from the implied intellectual capacity of its holder, might decline.

We already do this with Advanced Placement tests, although it would make sense to have more granular grading, to distinguish say the top .1% from the 1% from the 10%.

The most important part of this, for it to gain mainstream credibility, is for employers to actually hire people on the strength of these qualifications, as well as their interviewing skills, demonstrated work ethic, etc. Most people are going to school to get a good job, and if online education can provide that cheaper and faster, then brick and mortar schools will lose a lot of their advantage.

The optimistic scenario: employers, entrepreneurs and teachers get together to decide what they want potential employees to know, and go about writing a test that covers that material. Then the educators write courses that cover that material. In turn, these schools might even publish their student passing rates, pointing the way to the best teaching resources and methods.

While there'd be a certain amount of teaching to the test, if the tests are written well, that's not such a bad thing - the student would ace the test by knowing the material.

I disagree pretty strongly with that viewpoint. It seems very elitist to me. What defines Phoenix University is the quality of its courses, not the social status of its students.

The idea that you'd no longer have "intelligent people" at Udacity if it were accredited makes no sense to me. If the courses are of sufficient quality, you'll have intelligent people. The fact that it's available to someone who might need an alternative to spending four years and $136,000 at Stanford doesn't lower the intelligence of the students.

Sebastian Thrun, speaking to Charlie Rose, was thrilled at the fact that 150,000 students from around the world had been able to access Stanford's open courseware. He talked about democratizing education. At no point did he say he was worried about it being compared to Phoenix University.

What is the difference between someone who takes a course to earn degree credits and someone who takes it for "personal growth?" Is the course going to be dumbed down for the degree-seeker? I see no reason at all that it should be. I'm sorry, but wanting to deny access to degree credits in the name of worrying that it would be "another Phoenix University wannabe" just sounds snobbish.

I don't think it's the direction they're aiming at the moment, but that makes me sad. There's an opportunity here to step out of our privileged bubble of tech startups and make a difference for the world as a whole.

I was watching Charlie Rose's last interview with Carl Sagan recently. He cited a NY Times article, "Americans Flunk Science" that said less than half of American adults understood that the Earth rotates the sun yearly. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/24/us/americans-flunk-science... Carl Sagan pointed out that "if we (the general public) don't understand, then who is making all the decisions about science and technology that are going to determine our future?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jod7v-m573k

When the general level of education suffers in a society, you get superstition, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and many other things. It's in everyone's interest to raise the educational level of the human race.

If open courseware is viewed as something that's only for those that already have a love of learning, it will remain elite and cloistered among a small segment of society. If it becomes available as a formal education, it could go mainstream, and suddenly anyone with access to a good internet connection will be motivated and able to pursue higher education.

If we want to make quality advanced education mainstream and widespread, most people will need to see OCW as an opportunity to earn degree credits, not just as an opportunity for "personal growth." Sure, I think everyone ought to love learning just for the sake of learning, but I'm realistic, and I know that if you want to bring everyone in, you have to entice them with tangible benefits. They'll catch the love of learning once they are exposed to the kind of things a service like Udacity offers, but first you have to get them in.

Another commenter was worried about services like these becoming "Phoenix University wannabes." There will be some OCW services that will cater to the less ambitious or less intellectually capable. That's not a bad thing. For the impoverished or otherwise disadvantaged student capable of Stanford or MIT-level academics, though, there will be more challenging OCW services.

I can envision no scenario where making quality education and formal degrees available to anyone willing to step up and take advantage of it could be a bad thing. It's important for us to remember that while a formal degree might be unnecessary for someone with the right connections and opportunities, for most people in the world, it's still a very important thing to have.

Thanks, my sleepless brain interpreted premiere as premium.