Massively Open Online Courses: The new threat to the college monopoly

[dcan]

More on the coming changes in education. The recent courses from Stanford that had 100,000+ students (90,000 for database theory, and I believe > 150,000 for artificial intelligence) are spurring serious looks at alternative methods of education and certification, especially for the technology workforce.

With the advent of Massive Open Online Courses and other online programs offering informal credentials, the race is on for alternative forms of certification that would be widely accepted by employers.

“Who needs a university anymore?” asked David Wiley, a Brigham Young University professor who is an expert on the new courses, known as MOOCs. “Employers look at degrees because it’s a quick way to evaluate all 300 people who apply for a job. But as soon as there’s some other mechanism that can play that role as well as a degree, the jig is up on the monopoly of degrees.”

By the end of this year, Mr. Wiley predicted, it will become familiar to hear of people who earned alternative credentials online and got high-paying jobs at Google or other high-visibility companies. “Udacity may help that process along,” he said of the startup company offering two MOOCs this semester taught by prominent engineers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/educat...=education

[ryoder]

I am a big fan of certification. Why should a lawyer have to go to law school if she can pass the BAR. The same goes for a math teacher, a computer programmer, or an accountant.
A friend of mine took an MCSE course many years ago at significant cost to his company. Most of the students passed the class but only a very small number of them passed the certification exam. So getting grades in a course is not necessarily sufficient for passing an independent and objective certification test.
I learned it all on my own with books and paid $600 to take 6 tests. I passed all of the MCSE courses in 7 weeks, which I think was a world record at that time, way back in 1998.

[dcan]

Why should a lawyer have to go to law school if she can pass the BAR.

This is a serious topic of discussion that is starting to come up in the legal community. I've read several pieces about law school being useless for "real law" especially at $100-200K student debt loads, especially when you reportedly learn "real law" from studying for the BAR.

In my biz law class I found myself pretty quickly reading through things like Emanuel Law Outlines: Contracts to expand and learn more about the issues. And from what I read from lawyers the real learning of how the law really works comes from reading this stuff (which is basically tons of actual case decisions that set precedents) when studying for the bar and from interning at a practice or clerking in a court basically as an apprentice. You know, like we used to do things?

If that's the case, what the hell are people spending $200K in law school for? "Connections?" I posted a link in another thread from the president of the Massachussetts BAR Association complaining that the state's law schools turn out twice as many lawyers each year as jobs are available. Why? Because of guaranteed federal tuition money means they get paid more to crank even more students off the assembly line.

So many things keep coming back to the same answer. It's ridiculous. I'm definitely not an expert at this, but I will defer to the experts who say there's a problem.

[ryoder]

I think your line of reasoning makes sense. Schools just want to make money and they have powerful lobbyists who push for higher federal tuition entitlements.
I am an individualist and believe that anyone can educate themselves if sufficiently motivated. I hope everyone does this, but do not expect me to pay for your teacher and living expenses to do so.

[LaterBloomer]

A local school has also joined the bandwagon of proving free on-line courses.

U.Va., 11 other schools to join online platform - WTOP.com