EdX really got to me with their removal of past class materials and the "class starts today" dark pattern, and the constant certificate upsell attempts. Something like freecodecamp and Udemy is much more usable IMO.
MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
181–190 of 202 posts
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, sure, I think it's also terrible in for-profit companies. I think it's a source of vast economic inefficiency. But the usual excuses for it don't apply at nonprofits.
I disagree. It seems unreasonable to hold not-for-profits to such an extreme ethical standard. They're already doing charitable work, why must they also be expected to lead the charge on unrelated social matters besides the one they chose? I agree that executives are paid too much, but I don't expect a Soup Kitchen to be posting on social media about how they are fighting against discrimination of purple elephantfolk…
If their executives get paid above their level of competence then the nonprofit is no longer nonprofit, it just distributes the profits via executive salaries.
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#183I have a friend who works for 2u. the bootcamps just pump out bad devs. everything is taught way to fast, everything is glossed over, they are expected to learn the majority on the own
At this point it's pretty well known bootcamps are not a great hiring pipeline. Unless you can get "grads" at a significant discount. There's a reason Lambda is so desperate that they will "loan" you someone for a month at no costs (the VCs pay for it!). [0] [0] https://lambdaschool.com/hire-fellows
That is probably very bootcamp-dependent, I've found bootcamp grads have been very good. In particular, the fact that most grads have had "real jobs" elsewhere mean that they have good people skills/time management/actual sense of "getting things done" that vastly outweighs the skill imbalance.
Hell of a lot easier to increase someone's React knowledge than it is to, like, fix how they interact with people.
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#184I have a friend who works for 2u. the bootcamps just pump out bad devs. everything is taught way to fast, everything is glossed over, they are expected to learn the majority on the own
At this point it's pretty well known bootcamps are not a great hiring pipeline. Unless you can get "grads" at a significant discount. There's a reason Lambda is so desperate that they will "loan" you someone for a month at no costs (the VCs pay for it!). [0] [0] https://lambdaschool.com/hire-fellows
Oh wow, “100+ of our US-based engineers have been hired just this year?” That’s significantly lower than you’d expect.
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#185I bailed from edX many years ago after my course was abruptly ended to modify it. I was near the end but that didn't matter. After much back and forth arguing the best offer was 50% off the same course. I declined since there was no way to know whether edX would do the same thing again.
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#186I suspect that they're stepping back and makeing $$$ because if this stuff was really going to take off it would have happened during the pandemic. When that didn't pan out they decided to divest.
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, sure, I think it's also terrible in for-profit companies. I think it's a source of vast economic inefficiency. But the usual excuses for it don't apply at nonprofits.
I disagree. It seems unreasonable to hold not-for-profits to such an extreme ethical standard. They're already doing charitable work, why must they also be expected to lead the charge on unrelated social matters besides the one they chose? I agree that executives are paid too much, but I don't expect a Soup Kitchen to be posting on social media about how they are fighting against discrimination of purple elephantfolk…
Because not-for-profits, which have special legal and tax treatment on the theory they're doing good for society, are accountable for how they spend money in ways that for-profit companies aren't.
I also think it's hilarious that "don't overpay executives and instead spend the money on the good you're supposed to be doing" is an "extreme ethical standard". How did the Overton Window get moved all the way to the basement?
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#188So the universities have decided to monetise their own great reputations by simply selling it to a bidder?
This happened a long time ago with Harvard Extension School.
Hmm.. continuing education that’s more accessible seems to be the gist of it; I wouldn’t quite put that in the same bucket as this post’s headline…
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#189Just another example of industry consolidation, out of zillion others. This time in the MOOC domain.
Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U
#190I suspect it was just not a sustainable program from a revenue perspective for either school and has the risk to lower the schools reputation and suck away resources. 2U is one of the biggest for-profit higher education companies and seemingly one of the most successful ones, often partnering with other colleges and universities. I am suspicious of any of the for-profits being able to sustain a business. Most end up…
> I am suspicious of any of the for-profits being able to sustain a business. Blackboard has been around a long time and seems to do okay. Instructure (makers of Canvas) has done very well. Both sell Learning Management Systems (LMSes), not educational content itself. Big textbook publishers, like Pearson, have been managing incorporating online educational materials. But yeah, don't expect a unicorn to come around a…
Blackboard isn't a good example here. They are mostly discussed for their questionable business practices and shit product.