Why Professors at San Jose State Won't Use a Harvard Professor's MOOC

My first thought was this was another case of the "old guard" being afraid of change, but I read their letter and I actually agree with some of their points.

The obvious downside is the lack of interaction with the lecturing professor.

This was another point I hadn't thought of:

"The thought of the exact same social justice course being taught in various philosophy departments across the country is downright scary - something out of a dystopian novel"

https://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-Letter/13...

MOOCs are great for low cost and continuing education. I'm doing one right now, but it feels very lacking compared to my college experience, and I keep wondering how it's integrated in "real" courses.

Maybe this is a sign that we need to further bifurcate undergraduate & professional education from research. The two functions are not necessarily related, nor do they need to be performed by the same person. Undergrads need more education and training at a lower cost, and technology is the way to achieve that. The current university system is unsustainable because technology is threatening it, it's unsustainable because few can actually afford it anymore. MOOCs aren't threatening social justice, they are creating it, by making the curricula available outside of the ivory tower. MOOCs aren't for current university students, they're for anyone with an internet connection and a desire to learn. Who cares if it's not quite up to the quality standards of a university course because of the lack of personal interaction? It's free to access, what could be more democratic than that?

> Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose their job, etc.

Transportation advances caused great economic difficulties from 1870-1890 [1]

What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates and new mass employment industries are not created?

> I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of life?

I would say a basic minimum income would be investing in defense against violent revolutions. At some point people will just revolt if they are starved or even lack upward mobility.

> Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will probably take at least a decade.

There are long ramp up times for retraining and educating people. And I don't think education is going to be enough.

I think the most radical and unpalatable truth is that a huge segment of humans are just not going to be intelligent enough to provide value in the coming robot and machine intelligence run economy.

Our brains and memories could be so much greater, and we should engineer ourselves with all deliberate speed.

Humans have to upgrade themselves before they are obsolete.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation

The lack of interaction with a lecturing professor isn't a downside at all if you lacked the course at all before that.

Yes, a single social justice course would be bad. Consolidating the thousands of Algebra courses might be a good thing. It's really a strawman argument as MOOC's actually expand the number of courses available. You could choose between multiple versions by the same professor, potentially, not to mention other professors. Small schools with only one course offering of Obscure 101 would have alternate options. Everyone getting taught one thing is hardly a problem.

> Technology has been replacing workers for a long time, but unemployment hasn't been steadily increasing over time.

I think this line of thinking is unfortunately sanguine in light of the Wests youth unemployment levels and the uncharted territory we are heading into with robotics.

The beauty of the basic minimum income is that it leads to a more efficient economy. 1000 men with teaspoons thinking is a great atrocity, I don't know what else besides a minimum income will stop politicians from pandering to their constituents in this way.