Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 202 posts

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#21

Post by Y_Y »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #11
jp0d wrote: post #3

I'm doing my Micromasters in Statistics from MIT on EDX. Enjoying the amazing content and recognition of certificate. I'm not sure what this means for enrolled students like me. Is anyone else doing MicroMaster or similar course from a university and worried what this means? "MIT faculty may choose to continue to offer their courses through the new edX after the transaction is completed, or move them to MITx Online."

i had never heard the phrase "micromasters". Wikipedia suggests it is unique to EdX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroMasters

I think it's just a standard use of the prefix "micro-" to denote something with a value of one-millionth of the original thing.

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#22

Post by ecshafer »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #11
jp0d wrote: post #3

I'm doing my Micromasters in Statistics from MIT on EDX. Enjoying the amazing content and recognition of certificate. I'm not sure what this means for enrolled students like me. Is anyone else doing MicroMaster or similar course from a university and worried what this means? "MIT faculty may choose to continue to offer their courses through the new edX after the transaction is completed, or move them to MITx Online."

i had never heard the phrase "micromasters". Wikipedia suggests it is unique to EdX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroMasters

They are basically graduate certificates, which are a normal university thing. You take 3-5 graduate courses, they give you a certificate saying that you did this, you give them money. Not a full blown masters, thus the micromasters branding, but it can open the door to changing a career or entering a specialization.

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#23

Post by neovive »

From 2U's press release [https://2u.com/latest/industry-redefining-combination/] it's clear that they benefit significantly from associating themselves with the MIT, Harvard, and EdX brands. At $800M, I assume they have a well-planned monetization strategy for EdX.

My personal experience with EdX over the years is mixed. I audited a few EdX courses (CS50, Linear Algebra) and generally enjoyed the quality and pace of the courses, but was never compelled to purchase a verified certificate since these were more for leisure. I recall hitting up against the paywall and losing access to the exams. Although, I understand the need to monetize, it was a bit demoralizing.

Overall, I feel EdX helped define massively open online education and I hope they continue to support this mission in the future.

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#25

Post by porknubbins »

pizza234 wrote: post #8
brutus1213 wrote: post #4

This seems like terrible news :( After the focus on monetization of platforms such as udemy and coursera, edx seemed to give me a sliver of hope that education will be open. Given the immense trust funds held by Harvard and MIT, I had hoped money would not be a factor and these institutions would be able to develop their platform in the open. I'd like to add .. non-profit does not mean free to end users. There are ma…

Coursera and Udemy are two radically different platforms. Udemy has a very standard pricing model. You pay what you use (=courses), so I don't see any way this can significantly change either way. The teachers are private and not institutions, so it would likely be unprofitable to adopt a "significantly-free" freemium model. Coursera, Edx and so on apply instead the freemium model, which could be under theoretical th…

Yes I use Udemy a lot but I never even thought to compare it to online MOOC platforms. Udemy is great for short how to series on a particular technology, not for broad academic topics.

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#28

Post by extra88 »

etempleton wrote: post #19

I 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 and "disrupt" education.

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#29

Post by doggodaddo78 »

codeisawesome wrote: post #5

So the universities have decided to monetise their own great reputations by simply selling it to a bidder?

Well, patents and degrees work that way too. Universities are businesses first... extracting value from students and faculty. It's uncool when it becomes the primary focus.

It's not like Harvard and MIT don't have enough money already, so it's curious why they need obscenely more.

Re: MIT and Harvard agree to transfer edX to ed-tech firm 2U

#30

Post by pc86 »

brutus1213 wrote: post #4

This seems like terrible news :( After the focus on monetization of platforms such as udemy and coursera, edx seemed to give me a sliver of hope that education will be open. Given the immense trust funds held by Harvard and MIT, I had hoped money would not be a factor and these institutions would be able to develop their platform in the open. I'd like to add .. non-profit does not mean free to end users. There are ma…

Having a highly paid executive (even multiple) doesn't make a non-profit "terrible." People deserve to be compensated for their work and you'll have a hard time arguing that running a large non-profit successfully isn't challenging, demanding, and deserving of good compensation.
Post reply on HN