[tenpies]

> it's useless without some semblance of structure.

If you are starting out (so literally know too little to provide your own structure), then looking up student handbooks is a good place to start. Here is the relevant section of Harvard's: https://handbook.fas.harvard.edu/book/fields-concentration

You obviously do not get a course for course match, but from there you can pull up the syllabi or go off course titles.

Personally, I think the biggest weakness with MOOCs is the lack of academic recognition. I can take a MOOC course from Harvard, do the work, and get no credit. But if I put down $3,000 and do the same exact course through Harvard Extension school; all that work is pseudo-magically accredited and can be used for things like degrees and satisfying pre-requisites. And to be fair, that $3,000 gets me access to a TA and sometimes the Professor (if they field questions or host their own office hours), but the price tag for "accreditation" leaves a foul taste in the mouth.

I hope future generations judge us harshly for this.

[DeusExMachina]

> I hope future generations judge us harshly for this.

Although I agree that the accreditation is a problem that needs to still be solved, it’s with this last sentence that I don’t agree at all.

Judge us harshly for what? For creating all this free and accessible education, plus the whole infrastructure and technology that makes possible something that never was?

I find this constant anti-human sentiment and lack of gratitude worrying. As if everything should be perfect all the time.

[nagvx]

I think you are deliberately missing the point of the last line. Of course free access to a wide variety of education is a good thing - no one is doubting that.

But gatekeeping recognition for that education behind a paywall ensures that we are judging students not solely on their ability, but also on the size of their wallet.

There is nothing "anti-human" about acknowledging that, in an educational era of plenty, our systems are still failing those without the means to pay.

[DeusExMachina]

I have nothing against acknowledging problems. That's how we fix them. What I take exception to is the sentiment embodied in that sentence.

The gatekeeping behind a paywall issue is not what I was referring to.

But since you bring it up, I don't think that the analysis is so simple.

For one, I agree that there has been an over-inflation in the cost of universities, at least in the US and the UK (less so in other countries).

This paired with the fact that such education is going down in quality, most of that money pays useless bureaucracy and committees and you cannot default on education debt is a serious issue worth considering.

On the other hand, I also think we have to consider other factors.

For one, people value more things that come with a cost. This has been shown in studies. I recommend on the topic, "Influence", by Cialdini, for example.

In fact, raising fees in the UK seems to have increased attendance (1), although data seems to be contradictory on this one (and that's why I think it's a hard problem)

Anecdotally I can also say that in my business people value more the material they pay for and are more likely to follow through. I know this to be the case for other businesses too.

We have always to pay attention to the fact that the cure might make things worse instead of better. This is often the case with this type of interventions.

For example, countries with higher gender equality actually increase gender differences instead of reducing them (2). No one expected that, but that is the result.

(1) http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-what-happens-to-stu... (2) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

[davidwihl]

I’m an Extension student and have TF’ed for three classes. I think you get a lot of value for the full course instead of the MOOC. Grading, feedback, ability to ask questions, work on a team all significantly enhance the learning process. I haven’t had a single Extension class which did not provide all the access to professor I could ever need. Plus employers look at the credit with more certainty than a MOOC since there is independent proof that you have completed the material. YMMV, clearly.

[j_s]

Some may not know about Harvard's Extension School:

http://blog.markshead.com/911/harvard-online-masters-degree-...

Master’s degree (ALM in IT): mostly on-line (8 weeks on-campus) for appx. $30K.

[okbake]

I recently switched jobs and went through several rounds of interviews with several companies and the MOOCs I listed on my resume always came up. They served as a way for the interviewer to segue into the topic rather than a blind trust like a degree served. Not only did they show self motivation but they also acted as a way to shift the interview towards a subject I'm familiar with.

I think some of that shift is probably because of interviewers second guessing those courses though.

[zhte415]

Now.. I don't recommend spamming your MOOC instructor but fielding a relevant/poignant question or even just a note of thanks can elicit a positive response.

[TheAdamAndChe]

> I hope future generations judge us harshly for this.

I understand it's annoying to jump through hoops to prove your intelligence, but what else are we supposed to do? There are already colleges like Western Governors University that provide fully accredited, self-paced, online college degrees. Are you wanting the top colleges to do this too?

You've got to question the impact on the college's social status that such a change would bring. People don't (generally) go to Harvard for the superior education, they go for the social status that being a Harvard graduate brings. If we make such a school globally accessible, wouldn't that dilute that status?

[canoebuilder]

What about making admission simply based on intelligence plus the interest/initiative to apply, instead of jumping through various hoops?

That wouldn't dilute status because only 1 percent of the population is in the top percentile of intelligence.

[TheAdamAndChe]

> What about making admission simply based on intelligence

How do you measure intelligence for school admissions? Wouldn't that introduce biases?

Also, there's an underlying assumption that college currently is about selecting for and advancing intelligence. What makes you think this is what college is for nowadays?

[canoebuilder]

>How do you measure intelligence for school admissions?

The same way psychologists and the military measure intelligence.

>Wouldn't that introduce biases?

Like what?

>What makes you think this is what college is for nowadays?

Colleges and Universities have historically been and should always be about the preservation and pursuit of knowledge. If that is what is being optimized for, then you should also optimize for intelligence because the two are inextricably linked.