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

71–80 of 202 posts

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

#71

Post by whimsicalism »

wodenokoto wrote: post #33
benrbray wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to use edX for the first time recently to take a "food science" course, but was disappointed to see that they've resorted to the same dark patterns as Coursera and others, such as: * Removing your access to course materials when the class is done, and disallowing access to past versions of the class. * Pressuring you into joining as many courses as possible, due to fear of missing out. When you visit the site…

> Breaking courses into useless 2-minute chunks and constant unhelpful quizzes. I really just want to hear the lecturer speak for 20-30 minutes at a time uninterrupted, especially if I'm listening while doing dishes etc. I disagree. If you’re doing dishes you are not taking a college level course. One of the best things about digital courses is that you don’t have to spend an hour zoning out to a professor talking an…

> If you’re doing dishes you are not taking a college level course. One of the best things about digital courses is that you don’t have to spend an hour zoning out to a professor talking

Strong disagree - as you point out in the next sentence, slightly distracted is the standard model of consumption for in person.

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

#72

Post by hatware »

hashhar wrote: post #7

I'm sad that all education endeavours eventually turn for-profit and then the goals get misaligned. Produce as many courses at as minimum cost as possible. Enroll as many people as possible without regards for completion percentage. Create an economy where random people are incentivised to create courses and then the course quality tanks. I wish this turns out differently. Even Udemy and Coursera have become commeric…

> education endeavours eventually turn for-profit and then the goals get misaligned.

There are companies trying to battle the problems that come with a single bottom line, like Guild Education.

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

#73

Post by whimsicalism »

nobrains wrote: post #41
wodenokoto wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Breaking courses into useless 2-minute chunks and constant unhelpful quizzes. I really just want to hear the lecturer speak for 20-30 minutes at a time uninterrupted, especially if I'm listening while doing dishes etc. I disagree. If you’re doing dishes you are not taking a college level course. One of the best things about digital courses is that you don’t have to spend an hour zoning out to a professor talking an…

Well, it depends on the kind of a learner you are. Some learners prefer to listen to long lectures and some short (and some might prefer interactivities, and others might prefer one-way communication). This is where personalized learning comes in, which is something in its infancy and being explored by academicians and especially companies focused on e-learning delivery. (I work in tech at an online / blended learnin…

The problem with this "personalized learning" approach is that, outside of MIT OCW, everyone seems to have skipped implementing the normal, long lecture in front of blackboard to watch method straight to interactive laden content.

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

#74

Post by whimsicalism »

chaosbutters314 wrote: post #40
benrbray wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to use edX for the first time recently to take a "food science" course, but was disappointed to see that they've resorted to the same dark patterns as Coursera and others, such as: * Removing your access to course materials when the class is done, and disallowing access to past versions of the class. * Pressuring you into joining as many courses as possible, due to fear of missing out. When you visit the site…

why is food science in quotes? you wouldnt put physics course in quotes. As someone that works as an engineer in the food industry, our work is just as rigorous as other fields. When working with vendors that support different domains, they always get excited to work with us since we have some of the craziest and most challenging problems that are not straight forward. While the work we do may not be critical to savi…

Science and cooking is well known as a blowoff course @Harvard.

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

#75

Post by mattferderer »

wpietri wrote: post #65
pc86 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't necessarily so, but there's a correlation. A lot of terrible nonprofits are excellent at funneling money to execs. A lot of the work at nonprofits is challenging and demanding. Everybody deserves good compensation. But as with large for-profit companies, it's often only executives who get that. Take a look at CEO compensation over the decades. It has risen massively compared with worker pay: https://www.epi.…

Unfortunately this is not just a non-profit issue. This is an everyone issue.

One popular trending reason is that boards ask an outside firm what an average CEO makes at a similar size company. Then they decide to pay them slightly above average if they like them. Over 40 years this tends to sky rocket the salary of CEOs to where everyone wants an MBA just so they can get paid crazy amounts of work compared to what they put.

Of course the salary of the CEO doesn't even tell the whole story when you bring in tax perks of shares vs W-2 wages. Plus the CEO will probably get many other company "perks".

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

#76

Post by dalbasal »

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…

Time will tell.

Honestly, what I think is missing is a good destination. What is edX trying to be?

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

#77

Post by threatofrain »

benrbray wrote: post #6
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…

I tried to use edX for the first time recently to take a "food science" course, but was disappointed to see that they've resorted to the same dark patterns as Coursera and others, such as: * Removing your access to course materials when the class is done, and disallowing access to past versions of the class. * Pressuring you into joining as many courses as possible, due to fear of missing out. When you visit the site…

> MIT OpenCourseWare still has plenty of lecture videos / course materials available.

Hmm, I'd disagree. For example, Analysis 1 is a very desired course for many technical majors. Go look at OpenCourseWare's offerings for Analysis 1, perhaps peruse some of the videos.

Then go look for other desired courses -- missing content is characteristic and not the exception.

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

#78

Post by turadg »

benrbray wrote: post #6
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…

I tried to use edX for the first time recently to take a "food science" course, but was disappointed to see that they've resorted to the same dark patterns as Coursera and others, such as: * Removing your access to course materials when the class is done, and disallowing access to past versions of the class. * Pressuring you into joining as many courses as possible, due to fear of missing out. When you visit the site…

This is a dilution of the meaning of "dark pattern". darkpatterns.org which coined the term (and Wikipedia cites) says, "When you use websites and apps, you don’t read every word on every page - you skim read and make assumptions. If a company wants to trick you into doing something, they can take advantage of this by making a page look like it is saying one thing when it is in fact saying another."

I don't see any of that in your observations. Moreover, what you attribute to some nefarious purpose is better explained by effective curriculum design. I haven't used edX lately but I worked at Coursera and I can tell you that the people who make that product have a passion to support learning in the world.

* Removing access to course materials: it's a course, not a content library. When you can access it anytime, you're less likely to do the work of learning. You also won't be part of a learning cohort, which is a valuable learning activity.

* Encouraging you to sign up for courses: this is a problem? Wouldn't someone who wants you to learn encourage you to sign up for courses? "Course began ($TODAY - 5)" that would be deceptive. Are you claiming that edX or Coursera does this?

* Breaking courses into chunks and quizzes. How the heck is this deceptive? This design decision is backed by learning science. Listening while doing dishes does not get you the best learning outcomes; it's a university-level course not a podcast.

* "Unsettling UI" "opportunity to pounce" I really don't know what to make of this one.

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

#79

Post by cbozeman »

extra88 wrote: post #28
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 a…

> But yeah, don't expect a unicorn to come around and "disrupt" education.

The easiest way to get a bright-eyed SV entrepreneur to try to take something on is to tell them, "That industry is non-disruptable."

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

#80

Post by threatofrain »

turadg wrote: post #78
benrbray wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to use edX for the first time recently to take a "food science" course, but was disappointed to see that they've resorted to the same dark patterns as Coursera and others, such as: * Removing your access to course materials when the class is done, and disallowing access to past versions of the class. * Pressuring you into joining as many courses as possible, due to fear of missing out. When you visit the site…

This is a dilution of the meaning of "dark pattern". darkpatterns.org which coined the term (and Wikipedia cites) says, "When you use websites and apps, you don’t read every word on every page - you skim read and make assumptions. If a company wants to trick you into doing something, they can take advantage of this by making a page look like it is saying one thing when it is in fact saying another." I don't see any o…

> Removing access to course materials: it's a course, not a content library. When you can access it anytime, you're less likely to do the work of learning. You also won't be part of a learning cohort, which is a valuable learning activity.

Uh huh.

Post reply on HN