Hacker News Reader

Comment by memonkey | Hacker News Reader

This reads as a little conceited or else disconnected. I'm not saying I don't disagree, because I believe that MOOCs are probably better as a supplement to college, but another fact remains that some of us don't have the same opportunities to go to those same hand full of colleges. In other words, I think a huge part that is missing from this is the discussion of inequality.

MOOCs are not going away any time soon. There are professors and educators definitely taking the time to create quality lectures and make sure you get the help you need, and I don't think that's much different from attending an actual college. The only thing missing is probably the importance of human interaction.

Also, I'm not sure about that math because even he seems skeptical about it. Hope somebody can help enlighten me.

View on HN

I completely agree. The "foundational premise" of MOOCs isn't just about the cost of college, as the author claims... it's about access more broadly, of which cost is just one part. Sure, your average middle class American teenager has plenty of education opportunities -- people in full time jobs, distributed around the world, in rural areas, working full time and odd hours? Not so much. For these people, MOOCs truly are an "anything is better than nothing" proposition, and they don't have to replace college to be wildly successful. In fact, they can serve as a medium for elite universities to access talent they otherwise would never find -- as in this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/magazine/the-boy-genius-of...

"The only thing missing is probably the importance of human interaction." That's it, right there. Because, for the majority of students, human interaction isn't merely important, it's critical. The problem with MOOCs is that, because of this, they can never (baring some serious breakthroughs in strong AI) provide that key component, but we pretend that they're an adequate---some go so far as to claim superior---replacement for traditional education. In the end, MOOCs end up being a smokescreen that helps universities and governments avoid making substantive changes to address the affordability of education. The fact that it also helps them collect tuition from more students without spending any money on infrastructure or professor salaries on top of that is why so many University administrators become visibly aroused at the mention of MOOCs.

Isn't there a limit to how far 'teaching dependent learners' can go? Why spend so much time and effort accommodating people who are, by definition, self limiting?

False dichotomy. It's not a case of some minority who can't learn without teachers, but that pretty much all human beings benefit strongly from human interaction while learning (and, in particular, from an asymmetrical pair of roles, with an experienced/knowledgeable member and a novice). Admittedly, some more than others, and there are a rare few who can do nearly as well without it. You could as easily rephrase the argument as "why have MOOCs, when only a small fraction of people wouldn't do much better in traditional education"? My point is that pretending that MOOCs are just as good, or even nearly as good, as more traditional forms prevent us from real effort to actually improve upon those traditional forms, and from applying these very valuable communication tools in ways that are actually effective.

This is really the most important aspect of MOOCs. For me it's not about the students who would be going to college anyways, it's all the students(not just 1st world) that wouldn't be able to attend these colleges/universities still having the opportunity for a good education.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com