The MOOC Movement's Big Splash

Daphne Koller
(photo from Stanford University)

The Massive Open Online Courses movement, often called by the acronym MOOC, has recently taken a strong step forward into a brave new higher educational world. An online startup called Coursera is offering courses in selected tech subjects and math suitable for higher education. The firm is the brainchild of two Stanford University professors, one of whom is a MacArthur grant winner. Their goal is to transform "the face of higher education," noted Daphne Koller, one of the Stanford pair.

Coursera, and its MOOC relatives, essentially provide courses taught by star professors. Participants don't earn university credit, but then again, the courses are free. The story, which has received wide, big-league media coverage, hints at MOOC's tremendous implications without really stating them. (The Seattle Times version, which has a hometown interest, as the University of Washington signed a deal with Coursera, is linked here.)

The rather obvious implication in the MOOC movement is turning higher education into a monopoly of star professors. Why would anyone want to study chemistry or poetry from some also-ran doc? Those who has endured the American university system knows first hand how many courses are occupied by researchers who can't teach or communicate. For lower-tier colleges, MOOC is an existential threat, unless they turn their faculty into glorified MOOC teaching assistants. Of course, that strategy would lower salaries and, voila, make college cheaper to operate. The star profs, meanwhile, would be worth millions.

Coursera and others in the MOOC movement have considered the profit motive in their enterprises' calculations. The Seattle Times story quoted a University of Washington provost's estimate of $30,000 required for "one online course, and 'you have to monetize this in some fashion.' Coursera has outlined two models for making money....Under terms of the contract with the UW, the organization would get a 7 to 15 percent return of gross revenue under either scenario...But Coursera's courses still would be free."

Image from Jeremy Knox,
a co-instructor for a Coursera course.

The most interesting part of the story is how Coursera would use "data-mining software" to grasp how students were learning. I'm doubtful any system based on data analytics can foster true intellectual growth. Instead of the Socratic method and dialogue, we're left with a data-driven nightmare principally designed for the benefit of top-down management and financial efficiency. While Coursera and MOOC programs may very well be splendid, they lack the intimate human touch genuine education needs.