• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

MOOCs

bigbadwolf said:
Au contraire, mon ami: the long-term intention is to have MOOCs replace traditional courses. That's the idea. And while Coursera, Udacity, etc., are free right now, the idea is that eventually they'll charge for their offerings. Though thinking about this a bit more, you are technically correct that at the moment, these MOOCs can serve as a supplement. When people have to pay real money for the offerings, they will no longer be seen as a supplement but rather as a lower-cost alternative to traditional courses.
Click to expand...
Even in this case, think about the impact on the appropriate sections of the student population.

Slackers -- same result as a traditional course (failure to really learn anything), but costs less (net positive value).

Mid level -- Maybe slight marginal loss against a huge lecture course w/300 students, but the lower cost opens things up for more people, so again net positive value.

Highest achievers -- Much higher marginal loss, as I'm assuming these students would actively seek out their professors to discuss things in a traditional course. However, consider that these students are also the most likely to receive financial aid, and have the most to gain by investing in their educations. Those with means (whether $$ or aid or the will to take on debt/job) will get the better education, those without will get the inferior MOOC one, but at least they got it at all. So at the end of the day, it's a net positive as well, though likely much lower than for the first two groups.

Granted, my argument is that it makes a "bad system" better, rather than fixing it (which is the ideal), but it's still a better deal overall.
 
Yike Lu said:
Granted, my argument is that it makes a "bad system" better, rather than fixing it (which is the ideal), but it's still a better deal overall.
Click to expand...

I agree with your logic. I don't see much of a difference between 300-student classes and MOOCs. They can probably each teach basic courses (such as calc and college algebra) equally poorly. For more advanced courses I think there may be a problem -- more interaction is an ideal, particularly when we're talking of transmission of insight and ways of thinking. I have a bias towards a teacher with a handful of students. To me the vast lecture halls and the MOOCs are equally a travesty of a real education.
 
Yike Lu said:
That doesn't help at all. You asked about intrinsic educational qualities, but you're redirecting to intrinsic motivation (which I understand well enough). If you want me to answer a question, clarify the question.
Click to expand...
It's the same!
 
bigbadwolf said:
I agree with your logic. I don't see much of a difference between 300-student classes and MOOCs. They can probably each teach basic courses (such as calc and college algebra) equally poorly. For more advanced courses I think there may be a problem -- more interaction is an ideal, particularly when we're talking of transmission of insight and ways of thinking. I have a bias towards a teacher with a handful of students. To me the vast lecture halls and the MOOCs are equally a travesty of a real education.
Click to expand...
I agree here. We might see further stratification akin to junior college, where students take their first 2 years at a cheaper local college and then transfer. Instead it might be MOOCs to establish basics, then apply "transfer".

Certainly upper level courses are not appropriate for this format. But one could also argue that only a small portion of the student population needs upper level courses.

Remember that for a large section of academia, the goal is to generate candidates to become professors/do research. That's become over saturated already, and it's possible those last 2 years in college are a waste for most.
 
Last edited:
Daniel Duffy said:
It's the same!
Click to expand...
You've now spent 2 consecutive posts not clarifying your question. Are you really so averse to typing? I can guess what you mean, but it's likely to be wrong. Are you more interested in discussion or being frustrated?

So you're asking... if MOOCs are taught just for the joy of teaching? Or if they have any such qualities at all. I guess that given my argument of societal net benefit, that would make sense to ask. For the teachers, certainly there has to be in order to do them for free. For students, (again limiting ourselves to STEM courses) I'm sure a certain group that takes MOOCs would be so motivated.
 
I have been accused of many things, but never of avoiding a good discussion :D

This is what I mean (example of extrinsic motivation)

Remember that for a large section of academia, the goal is to generate candidates to become professors/do research. That's become over saturated already, and it's possible those last 2 years in college are a waste for most.

You see education as a utility function?

BTW neither of your statements is true.
 
Last edited:
Daniel Duffy said:
I have been accused of many things, but never of avoiding a good discussion :D

This is what I mean (example of extrinsic motivation)

Remember that for a large section of academia, the goal is to generate candidates to become professors/do research. That's become over saturated already, and it's possible those last 2 years in college are a waste for most.

You see education as a utility function?
Click to expand...
I think that the economy is not so fat anymore that purely intrinsically motivated education is viable. At least not with the expensive US system.

I think a lot of the degradation of education the last 10-20 years has to do with the over-emphasis of such intrinsic motivation, an example of which is the expansion of degrees that are useless in the real world. I intrinsically enjoy music (both performance and composition) and Shakespearean theater, but in my current circumstances I'm not going to pay to get a degree in either, as the expected monetary value from such is virtually nil.

Not to say I don't intrinsically enjoy math, programming, and trading. But clearly the calculus changes with economic circumstance.
 
I think that the economy is not so fat anymore that purely intrinsically motivated education is viable

Look at both short term and long term. Most stuff you learn now will be obsolete in 5 years time (except Numerical Analysis of course).
 
Daniel Duffy said:
I think that the economy is not so fat anymore that purely intrinsically motivated education is viable

Look at both short term and long term. Most stuff you learn now will be obsolete in 5 years time (except Numerical Analysis of course).
Click to expand...
So Quantum Mechanics may become obsolete but Shakespearean theater won't?
 
Yike Lu said:
So Quantum Mechanics may become obsolete but Shakespearean theater won't?
Click to expand...
Is that what you are learning now, QM? I bet there will be more people studying Shakespeare (e.g. in China) indeed.
 
Daniel Duffy said:
Is that what you are learning now, QM? I bet there will be more people studying Shakespeare (e.g. in China) indeed.
Click to expand...
We're talking about obsolesence, not number of people studying. For a high percentage of those studying Shakespeare, that knowledge is obsolete the moment they pass the course. You could say the same about QM (the specific knowledge certainly become largely obsolete the moment I decided I didn't want to do a physics PhD)*.

If you're saying the knowledge from applied courses becomes obsolete in 5 years, then that's a hell of a bargain compared to the immediate obsolesence of knowledge you won't use again, and that you likely gained for the sole purpose of fulfilling a requirement. And if we can reduce the cost of that wasted time (through MOOCs for example), then that's a net benefit.

"Long term" -- I'm guessing your point (which you still have refused to state clearly) is that the point of education is learning how to think. Maybe, for a certain segment of the student population. That's one value I derived from my education, but then I have means enough to think longer term.

Everybody has a different numeraire when it comes to what they derive from education. But lower cost alternatives like MOOCs reduce the cost with no impact on the upside for most. And for those with reduced upside, they most likely wouldn't have signed up anyways.

*Obsolete meaning here useless to the person who has the knowledge.
 
Daniel Duffy said:
Fun?
Click to expand...
Because giving up 5 years of your life to do incredibly hard work for little pay and with poor job prospects is so much "fun" to most people. Again, not everybody has the same numeraire, but many find out midway through their PhDs that doing a PhD is not aligned with their numeraire, and thus end up regretting it.

Sure, those that don't regret it highly value the intrinsic payoff, but that group is going to have little to no overlap with MOOC students. Those people don't want to pay a lot less for a somewhat worse product, they want the best product.
 
Back
Top