Will MOOCs Destroy Academia?

Moocs don't aim to destroy or even replace Academia.

The way they are currently used and enjoyed is as a combination of edutainment and for developing skills when no university program is feasible.

MOOCS are nice as a kind of podcast when they are on a n interesting subject. That being said I don't see them replacing academia until three big problems are solved.

The first is the value added problem, at the end of the day they aren't better than normal lectures and are actually a bit worse. It's funny that even the most innovate institutions have accomplished little more than putting lectures up online. Lectures are about on level with books when it comes to retention. A much better model would be adopting something more like code academy with a good balance of interactivity and theory.

The second and probably most important problem is the depth problem. You don't go to college to take general ed requirements. You go to take the high level sophisticated classes in your field. These classes are rarely delivered in the form of a lecture and often have extensive lab courses and student teacher interaction. I've yet to see a MOOC that can replace this effectively. Similarly, there is no good model for students to come in and pick up lab classes or lab materials. I'm sure there is a volunteer system that could do it, but it doesn't exist yet.

The final problem is of course credentialing. While many classes provide you with a certificate at the end the value of this is really up in the air. For most people, a certificate is unnecessary, the value is in the material, but if they plan to replace colleges they need to solve this problem.

I think MOOCs are the future. Just more like the 10 or 15 year future over the 5 to 10 year future.

MOOCs combine the INCREDIBLE FREEDOM (and efficacy) of self-directed learning with the benefit of access to discipline-leading educators, scaleable web-based interactivity, and active participatory online community.

Even given all that, nothing can replace the educational value of a 5 minute meatworld conversation with someone more knowledgeable than you. Unfortunately, this does not describe 99% of university experiences. I get better (more productive) conversations at my local hackerspace than I ever did during my undergrad years. And I'm the kind of person who is not happy unless I am learning.

I'm never going back to academia because I need relevant, active learning to be an every day thing.

Academia is really only appropriate for people who want to produce original research, (and also want that research to be taken seriously.)

And that's only because we haven't figured out a better system of peer review outside of academia with sufficiently high standards of ethics, quality, credibility and adherence to scientific methods.

So yeah. Even if you don't consider the depreciating real-world value of university degrees, academia is in trouble.

IMHO if academia wants to survive it needs to take a serious look at the real, tangible value it provides society and focus on that (and only that.)

Aside: There are plenty of shitty MOOCs, plenty that don't suit my learning style, but there is also a handful of golden MOOCs that have absolutely changed my life, and shape how I view the world. The difference between a shitty MOOC and a shitty pre-requisite or required university course is that you can leave the MOOC, stop participating and learn the content elsewhere. You are never locked into an unpleasant learning experience. Shitty MOOCs will either have to get better or die. In the shitty university course, you either suffer or fail. It's not a hard choice to make, given a choice.

I only skimmed this article, but I don't see how this argument works. US "academia" (in the sense of the top handful of universities in any given field) isn't supported by student tuition in any meaningful way. It's supported mostly by government grants to the science departments and by alumni giving (typically buffered by a large endowment foundation) to make up the slack. Only schools with no graduate programs (i.e. pretty much "not academia" by typical definition) need to get by on tuition.

US academic institutions are dominant because they have more money (largely because of historical government policy), not because of any monopoly position enjoyed over the students. I can certainly see European or Asian institutions taking over this lead, but certainly not because students want to attend "MOOCs". If you want a top-tier university go and buy one.

"The answer to every article whose title is a question is almost always 'No.'"