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

91–100 of 202 posts

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

#91

Post by drran »

ArtWomb wrote: post #18
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…

Not surprised a cooking class doesn't lend itself to an easy online port! But the lecture content from Harvard's Science and Cooking with El Bulli's Ferran Adria is still as you mention freely available online for all to enjoy. I recently had a free week pass to Masterclass. And though I found the content more entertaining than enlightening (How to be a Boss with Anna Wintour). There is something to be said about edu…

Watching of a movie about agent 007 will not make you a super spy.

To learn something, you need to watch a lecture, then receive a task, perform the task and provide a result, then receive feedback, and, finally, learn from the feedback.

Harvard video lectures are just another form of TV. They are mostly useless without Harvard.

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

#92

Post by benrbray »

ncallaway wrote: post #84
benrbray wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really catering to disable a feature. You can call it "audit" mode and offer no credential.

Sure they could do that. You're essentially asking them to implement an additional feature to handle a new use case—a totally reasonable thing to ask. But it seems like it's really a stretch to say "it's a dark pattern to not implement this feature that covers my use case". If not implementing a desired feature is a "dark pattern", then I'm not really sure I know what constitutes a dark pattern

The behavior I'm describing is how the website used to work. The put in extra work to prevent users like me from using it this way.

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

#93

Post by fullshark »

rossdavidh wrote: post #39

Hypothesis: MIT and Harvard had enough experience in distance learning by now to realize that it is NOT going to be the wave of the future in education. They don't want to exactly say this out loud and take flak for it, so they're just unloading this (for significant $$) primarily in order to refocus on in-person education, since they've realized that distance learning has been around for decades and nothing about th…

It's not the future for the elite institutions, why would you try and saturate the market with degree holders who can claim they graduated from Harvard/MIT? But it is the future in terms of replacing third rate degrees that charge too much and return too little ROI. Maybe they've decided they don't want to compete in this space anymore given that reality as colleges shut down, and it's no longer seen as an altruistic endeavor, but merely a market share war.

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

#94

Post by benrbray »

threatofrain wrote: post #77
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…

> 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.

I guess I see it from this perspective: I don't start my search for learning materials at OCW, but I often end up there through a Google search! Sometimes, it's for a surprisingly advanced / specific topic, too.

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

#95

Post by foolmeonce »

whoomp12342 wrote: post #57
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…

fuck completion percentage, it is more than just that. consider the QUALITY of completion. e.g. Did you show up 30% of the time? yer a graduate!

I think good goal posts are even further away.. If you complete 100% of calculus I and then delete all access to it instead of solidifying it by going to calculus II, you will need to learn calc I again within months and the cognitive dissonance that creates will cause most people never to learn calculus.

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

#96

Post by MR4D »

This makes no sense. They could do a simple transaction transferring it to a 401c3 entity and be done with it.

The idea of a public company, a public benefit company, a university, a nonprofit, and 800 million dollars changing hands in this complicated of a transaction seems incongruous.

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

#97

Post by bobobob420 »

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…

"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."

lol, no one will take your points seriously with your clear bias. Coursera is utter shit and it is sad to see edX go down the same path. I guess because the people at Coursera are passionate it means the business does not have a desire to make money as much as a bank and thus the original OP's points are not valid.

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

#98

Post by colllectorof »

unethical_ban wrote: post #63
colllectorof wrote: post #26

Good. Less cognitive dissonance for me. I can now more confidently and accurately say that the higher ed in US is dead and produces little more than fake credentials and political propaganda.

"I am glad that something I perceive as negative occurred, so that I don't have to be wrong about my assumptions".

More like "I'm tired of anticipating the inevitable, while being relentlessly gaslit about its probability". Whether or not edX is sold to a third party, the underlying problems are already in the system. It's the effect, not the cause.

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

#99

Post by whimsicalism »

cbozeman wrote: post #79
extra88 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Well people have been saying that for decades around education, so my intuition is that this represents decades of bright-eyed failure.
Post reply on HN