Online Degrees That Are Seen as Official
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The certification is what you need. But to get it, the university can require you to purchase a whole bunch of very expensive education you may not need.
Only by separating the two will this problem be solved: having certification authorities that are independent of educational providers.
In that utopia, even a regular university can't grant you the certification. They can market themselves as the best and most cost effective way for you to reach the competency needed to achieve your certificate. But, perhaps MOOCs are better, or intensive library study, or perhaps you're already that competent, and don't need any education to get there.
It is only that which can solve the scandal of indebting vast swathes of young people by tens of thousands of dollars.
So I'm suspicious of this article, because the solutions described still make the same mistakes. The body that provides you with the education, certifies you as having had that education. Okay there may be more evidence as metadata, but still, the incentive is there for providers to bias their certification towards the educational products they want to sell.
I realise that degree-certification-bodies isn't what you meant by "certification" -- that you're thinking more of the "industry cert" model, where a training centre teaches you material, and then you pay to take an exam from the certifier. The point though is that's not what society (or at least as represented by government) wants university to be. It is, at least currently, supposed to be education not just training and testing.
That's not so surprising to me, in that a degree tends to be an entry to a career. And that career can be long enough that competencies are likely to change in unpredictable ways over your career. So, it makes some sense for graduate employers to be more interested in an education they believe means you are likely adapt well to those changes, and perhaps lead those changes. Rather than a competency certification that shows you know the current state-of-play.
Whether that will change over time is an interesting question. If the market does move towards just certifying competencies, I have an awkward suspicion that it will be because of general trends towards workforce casualisation. If you see employees as disposable (hire the skills of today, and tomorrow fire them to hire the skills of tomorrow) then education is less important than today's competency.
This isn't intended as a criticism of MOOCs, nor in any sense to diminish them. I'm not only interested in them, but trying to develop some -- I have something of a vested interest towards MOOCs... It's just that I'm personally more interested in how we can improve MOOCs to offer an education, rather than how we can get the market to stop demanding an education and just want a competency-certification.
By competency, I don't mean some narrow technical expertise, but whatever skills it is that an employer needs their workforce to have, that universities claim to impart.
What a useful certification usually actually says isn't "this person can use this tool", it's "this person has been educated in a certain way and paid attention during that education, leading to the ability to use this tool".
For the vast, vast majority of certs out there where you don't have to take a course to take the exam, you can knowledge-cram for a comparatively short period of time, then take the exam without actually having much experience, even if "only" in a lab, then forget most of what you've learned shortly afterwards. As a result, few employers care about them.
If you want to do certs separate from education paths, you have to figure out a better way of testing people - possibly real-world (or at least lab-based, scenario-oriented) testing over a period of time.
Where I disagree is the tacit implication that, therefore university education is somehow better at being an indicator of those skills and qualities. I've seen a lot of terrible graduates who I wouldn't employ if they paid me: graduates who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. So I'd respectfully disagree with that implication.
It does tend to be a better indicator - just because it's not perfect doesn't make it the same.
Most state-administered professional certification exams have similar eligibility requirements.
You could theoretically get certified with only high school and work experience, although I don't think any employers would hire someone without a bachelor's. The degree can really be in anything though as long as you've passed an exam or two, as this shows an employer that you're serious and have learned at least something.
I believe the system works in our case because there is an ecosystem of employers, employees, recruiters, and government agencies that all buy into the exam process. It's sort of a throwback guild system that's not very similar to IT certifications such as CCNA.
In the world of IT, university degrees mean very little, as universities almost universally fail to teach anything useful for that industry.
There's still very few certs that mean anything. At the entry level, all of the certs are dreadful, and past the entry level, experience usually matters more than what certs you have.
There's actually one or two other concerns, too: networking and fun. Some of the value I and many other people got from college is meeting others with similar interests.
Regarding fun (and parties), I get the sense that most HN readers probably aren't or weren't party animals, but that's actually a pretty common reason for people to go to college, per Sperber's Beer and Circus (http://www.amazon.com/Beer-Circus-Crippling-Undergraduate-Ed...) and Armstrong and Hamilton's Paying for the Party (http://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliza...).
I don't really have a sense of how the university bundle really breaks down into core value.
I see something similar happen on a smaller scale when a business tries to re-design a successful legacy product: The conditions that made it possible to design the original product no longer exist. Nobody really understands why the legacy product was successful, and the original designers are long gone -- they were "acqui-fired."
The legacy product might have a number of glaring shortcomings, but the re-design team ends up creating something that's worse.
Neither MOOCs nor certification programs offer that key function. When Coursera only accepts people with a certain SAT score, then issues "degrees" ranking candidates by class performance, I think we'll see employers take them more seriously.
But I partially agree: certification programs need to indicate degree of attainment, not just pass or fail. I disagree that SAT entry requirements is particularly important to an employer. If I wanted to make sure a candidate had a certain SAT score, I could ask them for it, couldn't I?
Filtering alone doesn't explain why those companies go 50% deep into the pool of Harvard graduates before considering the top 5% of UCLA grads.
* General Computer Science Cert
* Software Architecture Cert
* C Lang Cert or a Java Cert
from an accredited institution and be instantly employable at the entry level. This is kind of how it works with Network Engineering, I wonder why it can't with Programming/SoftDev.
Greatly complicating things is the fact that you often don't need to know anything in particular to succeed. There is no shortage of people who learned on the job and became successful. Filtering out such people with an exam may badly damage your hiring.
Love that flexibility when I was there. The cost per credit was the same whether I took the course online or on campus.
Did three semesters online before switching to the regular campus (my program wasn't fully online). The education was top-notch too with responsive profs and (for the most part) a good pace even though you're doing a lot of self-studying. My final exams were either held at colleges near my area or proctored at public libraries (the latter though I had to arrange on my own and the school just mailed the exams directly to the library).
At the end of my second year, I transferred to McGill and I was a bit disappointed at the state of their online course offerings (barely had any, apart from some electives, that could count for my degree). Also felt the school had a misguided bias against online courses (if you take one externally, there's a limit of 2 courses that you can apply to your degree - http://www.mcgill.ca/oasis/away/online-courses). When I was trying to get transfer credits, any mention of the course being taken online got my advisor telling me that my course would probably be denied. It was a good thing Waterloo didn't differentiate in my transcript between the two or else a lot of my credits might have not transferred over.
This was such a stark contrast to Waterloo where I really felt they considered their online courses to be just as comparable to their on-campus ones. I suppose though it's the whole culture of the instition. It helps too that Waterloo has a whole department dedicated to just the creation, design, development and testing of online-based courses - where they have designers/devs/subject/qa spcialists working closely with professors to design the courses (both for credit courses and professional development/continuing education courses). I don't believe my school has such a department to rely on.
Edit: I can't remember having to do a group project with an online student though. I think they may have been able to do a smaller project by themselves for the group assignments.
Regarding the degree program itself, the material and rigor (assignments, tests etc), is also identical. However the process it's obviously different. We use Piazza for collaboration, and for group projects google hangouts. I had a great project last semester with a team of people all around the US (the course staff puts people together by timezone and native language spoken to make it more feasible). It worked great! Just like today's workplace is distributed, working with remote teams or working from home is no longer a niche, then why should education be any different? If I had the time (and budget), I would prefer an on-campus program, mostly due to the social aspect, networking, and fun aspect of it. But I'm not in my 20s. I have kids and a day job, and what GT did was simply the only way I would go for a graduate degree. (I didn't need it per-se, I do it because it's fun and interesting and cost effective at their current price range. had it been higher, I don't think I would go for it)
For example, this last semester saw a lot of people accepted without compsci or math experience. That would make the prospect pretty daunting.
I am guessing you are in CS6290, or one of the newer courses.
It's time we do something else though. Paying 100k just to signal to employers your socioeconomic background is bankrupting everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Denmark
Seems like there's a lot we could learn from a system like that.
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifications/q07
As per other UK universities, you can transfer the credits you've earned to brick & mortar universities, so she'll probably do that for the final year.
(Technically they are "off campus" rather than "online", as the exam component of the assessment is an invigilated written exam, not an online exam)
This is what we are working at http://www.CourseBuffet.com
Like courses are given the same classification and fall under the same CourseBuffet title.
Education in America is over. Public schools are completely underfunded, mismanaged and ignored. Universities have become businesses that offer a horrendous ROI. If your lucky enough to get in an Ivy or you'd like to work in academia (good luck in both cases), go. Otherwise save your money and figure out your own path because our previous highway to middle-class has crumbled.
But there's also truth in your comment, particularly about ROI (excluding prestigious or legally required degrees) and figuring out your own path.
You're wise to consider the value of a graduate degree before pursuing one.
The calculation is trivial -- top masters programs often publish entry and mid career salary information.
Exactly. On the merits, a MOOC degree ought to be infinitely more worthwhile than any traditional college degree. MOOC completion (quite literally) demonstrates project work, practical skills, attendance, and interaction. The courses themselves are the highest quality in the world and the rigor and impartiality is available for all the world to see. In a sane world, MOOCs will inherit global education.
But the world hasn't caught up yet. Right now the only commonly understood credential is the college degree, which everyone knows can be accomplished through registering for bullshit courses, skipping class, plagiarizing occasional essays nobody will ever read, and earning a one-word major that does nothing to prove any actual skills. Historically, this is as good as we've been able to do. No longer.
Give it time. There are entrenched interests here -- not only the massive and powerful education industry, which is now obsolete, but also every existing college graduate whose expensive credentials are now threatened by the radically superior MOOC certificate. Not to pick on teacher unions in particular, but several states require infamously pointless masters degrees in education before you can teach. Lawyers likewise REALLY don't need a three-year JD before we can practice... and the US stands alone in requiring bachelor's degrees prior to legal training or bar passage (with the exception of California). Virtually any non-STEM job that requires a bachelor's can be filled without the aid of expensive four-year certificates in poetry or pottery or communications. That's an enormous threat to basically every working professional in the United States.
Employ the D.E.N.N.I.S. system here.
First, demonstrate the value of MOOC certificates to employers.
Second, engage employers with hiring pipelines direct from Coursera/Udacity/edX.
Third, nurture these pipelines and grow them into a viable Github-for-employment.
Fourth, neglect protests from existing interests that have demanded advanced degrees in "teaching MOOCs" (seriously) or jeers that MOOC completion rates are low.
Fifth, inspire students with visible examples of success through MOOCs. Thiel fellows are the closest to this, but the project more closely resembles a lottery than a structured path.
Sixth, separate MOOCs entirely from their current aping of traditional courses. There is no reason whatsoever to release courses on a real-time basis, or to rely on artisanal videotaped lectures. (Though MOOCs have admittedly improved dramatically on the latter, with faster speeds, transcripts, open courseware, etc.)
Or... just withdraw federal subsidies for student loans and make host institutions partially liable for student defaults. I'd love to see the argument to pay $50k/year to attend no-name for-profit ripoffs in the middle of nowhere, versus free attendance in every Harvard course at any Starbucks in New York City.
Do you have any evidence for that? That is, there's very little research to back that up. For example, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1902/300... compared the two systems and found that they were roughly the same, in terms of outcomes.
However, that's based on completing the course. From the paper, "Although approximately 17,000 people signed-up for 8.MReV, most dropped out with no sign of commitment to the course; only 1500 students were “passing” or on-track to earn a certificate after the second assignment. For the IRT analysis we included only the 1,080 students who attempted more than 50% of the questions in the course, 95% of whom earned certificates. Most of those completing less than 50% of the homework and quiz problems dropped out during the course and did not take the posttest, so their learning could not be measured."
Further, "It is also important to note the many gross differences between 8.MReV and on-campus education. Our self-selected online students are interested in learning, considerably older, and generally have many more years of college education than the on-campus freshmen with whom they have been compared. The on-campus students are taking a required course that most have failed to pass in a previous attempt. Moreover, there are more dropouts in the online course (but over 50% of students making a serious attempt at the second weekly test received certificates) and these dropouts may well be students learning less than those who remained. The pre- and posttest analysis is further blurred by the fact that the MOOC students could consult resources before answering, and, in fact, did consult within course resources significantly more during the posttest than in the pretest."
This reads like if a student finishes a course then there isn't much difference based on how they learned the material. Hardly the sign of a 'radically superior' education system.
1) Free (or nearly free) 2) Open to anyone 3) flexible to fit anyone's schedule 4) Easier to show the actual work completed (because there is a digital copy).
Generally, any student who needed special considerations for any of the above (a likely non-trivial amount of students), they had to compromise on the quality of education. For those students, I'd argue that it a significant improvement.
California used to have (1). The GI bill also meant (1) for many veterans. Germany, Sweden, and some other countries still have (1). Which makes it easy to judge if current US universities are radically inferior to tuition-free universities. The Open University in the UK is a decades old example of (2) and (3), though not (1).
It's therefore hard for me to accept that MOOCs are significantly more radical and superior than existing systems which already incorporate most of the points that are supposed to make it radical and superior.
And, (4) Seriously? What, some employer is going to come and insist seeing my individual assignments for partial differential equations before hiring me? And read through my essays for sociology class? And my term papers for introductory philosophy? Embrace the Panopticon!
For that matter, my wife's college (she takes online courses) is focused on team projects, so most of her assignments are done with 2-3 other people. How is the outside world supposed to figure out which part is hers? How much time are they willing to spend to disentangle this?
And finally, if this were useful then a pen-and-paper correspondence college could add a small surcharge per course to hire someone to scan incoming mail and put it in a file for future reference. That that hasn't happened, nor that there's been a call for it, suggests that it isn't so useful.
A traditional student trajectory tells the HR lady the following positive (from the point of view of corporate HR) things:
1) Came from a social / economic / racial class able to afford schooling instead of work in early years
2) Dedication to a pointless goal (graduate in 4 years vs 5+, or in the corporate world this would be pointless grinding optimization of meaningless numerical metric goals)
3) Able to take on huge debt load (see #1 above) and has a huge debt load thus easier to mistreat because they've got that loan payment hanging over them (see also the reason why companies love when employees take out a mortgage or car loan, welcome to mandatory unpaid overtime LOL)
4) applicant is a follower not a leader and does whatever people tell them. Once that meant taking out $100K in loans to get a piece of paper, after hiring it'll mean helping the boss "smooth over" some regulations and accounting issues or whatever other form of corruption as long as it comes from above. Because authority wouldn't be authority unless it was correct, right?
I'd like to think that, but actually I suspect you are dead right.