MIT launches free online 'fully automated' course(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
MIT launches free online 'fully automated' course
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17012968
13 comments
" But in future, the university says, there will be mechanisms for checking identity and verifying work."
This increases the value of the certificate as proof of knowledge and competence. Let's imagine that MIT offered 20 engineering courses in this format. You go through the effort of honestly taking these courses and add them to your resume. A potential employer says:
"Well, these courses are really rigorous -- much more so than those for-profit online 'universities'. While MIT will allow me to verify that a single online account holder claiming to be this person completed these courses, there's no proof that you didn't cheat or pay people to take the tests for you. Just look at how many CS homework projects are listed on Rent-a-Coder! I have to bring this person into my office and check them out myself to be sure."
I have argued previously that this "checking out" process isn't so expensive that an impressive resume would be passed over, and I still think this. However, what if a student had the option of paying a fee to take a test at an approved testing center which would check identification, take a photo of the student (available on MIT's site along with the course certificates), and ensure that this person took the test himself? Those taking actuarial exams and such already take tests at such locations. For those who didn't want to pay, lived somewhere without such centers, etc., certificates could be given which would have a lower level of authentication. If you are taking the time to complete a course and want to prove to others that you did not cheat, wouldn't it be worth paying an extra $100?
This increases the value of the certificate as proof of knowledge and competence. Let's imagine that MIT offered 20 engineering courses in this format. You go through the effort of honestly taking these courses and add them to your resume. A potential employer says:
"Well, these courses are really rigorous -- much more so than those for-profit online 'universities'. While MIT will allow me to verify that a single online account holder claiming to be this person completed these courses, there's no proof that you didn't cheat or pay people to take the tests for you. Just look at how many CS homework projects are listed on Rent-a-Coder! I have to bring this person into my office and check them out myself to be sure."
I have argued previously that this "checking out" process isn't so expensive that an impressive resume would be passed over, and I still think this. However, what if a student had the option of paying a fee to take a test at an approved testing center which would check identification, take a photo of the student (available on MIT's site along with the course certificates), and ensure that this person took the test himself? Those taking actuarial exams and such already take tests at such locations. For those who didn't want to pay, lived somewhere without such centers, etc., certificates could be given which would have a lower level of authentication. If you are taking the time to complete a course and want to prove to others that you did not cheat, wouldn't it be worth paying an extra $100?
It's interesting how their first course is actually quite technical and has extensive prerequisites. I'm worried about not doing well because of these requirements -- is anyone in the same boat as me? I'm taking the course more out of curiousity and to be a part of something big than an expectation to do well.
Ya, it says AP level physics is strongly recommended, but I won't even start grade 10 physics until March! I really want to take it, though, so I'll have to see what I can do.
How are they doing labs? The FAQ mentions that there are labs, but there is no information how how they are to be accomplished or submitted.
Since this is a circuits course, I assume they would use a circuit simulation.
I personally think this is the best circuit simulation to learn the basics of college level analog and digital circuits (it is animated), but I highly doubt the MIT course will be using it: http://falstad.com/circuit/
I used a customized version of it in my own research, and within minutes engineering students (who had already finished their intro circuits classes but still showed misconceptions) were better understanding the behavior of circuits: http://usu.academia.edu/edtechdev/Papers/161483/Designing_An...
I personally think this is the best circuit simulation to learn the basics of college level analog and digital circuits (it is animated), but I highly doubt the MIT course will be using it: http://falstad.com/circuit/
I used a customized version of it in my own research, and within minutes engineering students (who had already finished their intro circuits classes but still showed misconceptions) were better understanding the behavior of circuits: http://usu.academia.edu/edtechdev/Papers/161483/Designing_An...
Enrolled! Anyone have any opinions on what subjects you CAN'T teach effectively through MITx's proposed methods?
I'm having trouble coming up with any "intro"-level work that cannot be effectively handled in this way. Solve the likely engagement issues (perhaps with well-designed gamification), and suddenly you've replaced all 100-level university courses -- freeing professors to teach the interesting stuff.
I'm having trouble coming up with any "intro"-level work that cannot be effectively handled in this way. Solve the likely engagement issues (perhaps with well-designed gamification), and suddenly you've replaced all 100-level university courses -- freeing professors to teach the interesting stuff.
Introductory-level courses are interesting stuff if the right person teaches it (to the right students). In fact, they can (and should) be more than that. Intro courses should inspire, fascinate, and fill students with excitement about their journeys ahead in their field. I was lucky to have some of those.
In terms of the lecture content, if you go to any large university this is essentially how those 100 level courses are taught anyways. You're sitting in a huge auditorium with hundreds of other students just watching the lecture on a TV screen. The grading of assignment is then done by TA's. The professor has been abstracted away so far in those classes that I see little difference just replacing it with a format like this.
Agreed. However I wouldn't complain if this drives costs down for students.
English seem like the largest issue, because the system would need to be able to understand an essay to grade it and provide feedback. The other issue is intro classes are setup to go over material with the expectation that people will form study groups if they don't understand it. Which in many ways is punting the issues of education back on the students.
P2PU has an implementation (clumsy, at this point) of the "study group" concept -- but there's nothing about learning online that makes it impossible to collaborate with fellow students, right? I agree it's a problem, but I think it'll be solved sooner rather than later.
As for the English example, you'd probably run into that problem for all types of writing-intensive courses. That seems like potentially a major gap in this entire model of learning. Multiple-choice and defined-output problem solving sometimes just can't cut it...
As for the English example, you'd probably run into that problem for all types of writing-intensive courses. That seems like potentially a major gap in this entire model of learning. Multiple-choice and defined-output problem solving sometimes just can't cut it...
FYI: MIT already has the entire curriculum for every course in every degree program online at http://ocw.mit.edu
Actually, I don't think all of the courses are available through OCW. I recently tried to find all the course for the Computer Science bachelor's degree plan and found all but one: http://www.gliffy.com/publish/3280755/
On top of this, many of the course are just lecture notes. My experience has been that the lecture notes aren't much better than a good e-book.
I'm really excited for the OCW Scholar program (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ocw-scholar/) to expand more, as they offer screencasts, problem sets, and the rest of a fully automated learning package.
On top of this, many of the course are just lecture notes. My experience has been that the lecture notes aren't much better than a good e-book.
I'm really excited for the OCW Scholar program (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ocw-scholar/) to expand more, as they offer screencasts, problem sets, and the rest of a fully automated learning package.
>designed to serve as a first course in an undergraduate
>In order to succeed in this course, you must have taken an AP level physics course in electricity and magnetism.
Do high schools actually offer AP EE Physics classes? I went to a blue ribbon high school and they sure as hell didn't offer anything that specific at that advanced of a level. Even the university I went to had EE Physics as a 200 level class.
>In order to succeed in this course, you must have taken an AP level physics course in electricity and magnetism.
Do high schools actually offer AP EE Physics classes? I went to a blue ribbon high school and they sure as hell didn't offer anything that specific at that advanced of a level. Even the university I went to had EE Physics as a 200 level class.
They didn't say EE (electrical engineering). They said electricity and magnetism (E&M).
The AP physics curriculum has AP Physics B, AP Physics C (Mechanics), and AP Physics C (Electricity and Magnetism). At my high school (a fairly well-off public high school), in the AP Physics class, we were supposed to do both Mechanics and E&M, but we fell behind and had only just started E&M by the time the test rolled around. Some people just took the mechanics test; I took both, and got a 5, but the college I went to didn't accept AP Physics for credit, just for placement in the honors physics track. In college, E&M was the second-semester physics class in the honors track.
So, I don't think it's too unusual to expect a talented high school student or first or second year college student to have taken an E&M course.
The AP physics curriculum has AP Physics B, AP Physics C (Mechanics), and AP Physics C (Electricity and Magnetism). At my high school (a fairly well-off public high school), in the AP Physics class, we were supposed to do both Mechanics and E&M, but we fell behind and had only just started E&M by the time the test rolled around. Some people just took the mechanics test; I took both, and got a 5, but the college I went to didn't accept AP Physics for credit, just for placement in the honors physics track. In college, E&M was the second-semester physics class in the honors track.
So, I don't think it's too unusual to expect a talented high school student or first or second year college student to have taken an E&M course.
>They didn't say EE (electrical engineering). They said electricity and magnetism (E&M).
A lot of people are picking up on that. I didn't type the whole name out partially because I didn't know a better, standardized abbreviation for it, and partly because I was typing on my phone at the time and didn't want to spell it all out. I hoped everyone would know what I meant, but apparently not. My blue ribbon high school didn't have E&M physics classes.
A lot of people are picking up on that. I didn't type the whole name out partially because I didn't know a better, standardized abbreviation for it, and partly because I was typing on my phone at the time and didn't want to spell it all out. I hoped everyone would know what I meant, but apparently not. My blue ribbon high school didn't have E&M physics classes.
I don't think it is an EE physics class. Rather the first physics class generally deals with motion/forces while the second includes electromagnetism.
[deleted]
My high school didn't.
I want to try this, but...I never studied electromagnetism or linear algebra. Is it feasible to pick up enough of those to get through the course (the docs mention remedial math is included).
If it is possible to learn those quickly, where should one start? Perhaps the relevant OCW courses?
I want to try this, but...I never studied electromagnetism or linear algebra. Is it feasible to pick up enough of those to get through the course (the docs mention remedial math is included).
If it is possible to learn those quickly, where should one start? Perhaps the relevant OCW courses?
It's definitely possible but it might be a bit tough. I'd say Electromagnetism will probably be much more important than linear algebra. You can check out 8.02 on OCW (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magn...) which covers basically the same material as AP Physics but with more calculus and a higher level of difficulty of course. Good luck!
"AP level physics course in electricity and magnetism" is referring to AP Physics C. Generally corresponds to the second semester of freshman physics: it covers electricity and magnetism fairly in depth but you won't see any circuit design, signal processing, etc.
Welcome to MIT...
As would be expected, "Design and lab exercises are also significant components of the course." Sadly there is still no information on how this is going to be handled. Are you going to take pictures of your breadboard and multimeter readings to show you did your homework?
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
You could have a software to simulate lab exercises.
But I'm curious how they'll solve the "mechanisms for identity checks". What could they do? If they wanna do real lab exercises and not software simulation, then both are similar problems. I can imagine either using a camera, like you said, or partnering with local schools around the world.
Both have many flaws, let's see what they come up with.
But I'm curious how they'll solve the "mechanisms for identity checks". What could they do? If they wanna do real lab exercises and not software simulation, then both are similar problems. I can imagine either using a camera, like you said, or partnering with local schools around the world.
Both have many flaws, let's see what they come up with.
I imagine simulation is definitely the route they will go. To be honest, I would be happy with anything outside of just reading and answering questions. I am taking a similar course at my university now, and there is absolutely no lab exercises, simulations, or anything outside of your typical lecture. I've been learning LTspice in my spare time, but I was pretty disappointed that there wasn't something like that already in the curriculum.
Once they offer a full set of modules, for say a CS degree, this could be very disruptive indeed.
I'm looking forward to a full set of CS modules! I've always believed that you can get a decent education with just a library card so a free, comprehensive curriculum of this sort would be invaluable.
With the right level of self discipline any one can benefit from this tremendously, pretty much like everything else in life. The difference now is accessibility to virtually everyone.
Good step in the right direction. However, you are going to work just as hard, if not harder, than a local student and not get credit that can be used towards a proper university degree. I understand that this is an experiment. I get it. But, maybe MIT could offer the option to pass the actual course with full credit by examination once a student gets a passing grade on the MITx course?
It just seems like a lot of work for a certificate that might not carry much, if any, real weight. There are a good number of online degree programs where your work will actually go towards a degree.
The model I'd love to see goes something like this: Enroll in MITx. Study on your own. Pass. Then, on an annual basis, there's an opportunity to come to MIT, take a test, do some labs and get credit and grade on the real class towards a degree. People from all over the world would be open to that approach.
Now, if all you want is the knowledge while participating in a really neat experiment, by all means, full steam ahead.
It just seems like a lot of work for a certificate that might not carry much, if any, real weight. There are a good number of online degree programs where your work will actually go towards a degree.
The model I'd love to see goes something like this: Enroll in MITx. Study on your own. Pass. Then, on an annual basis, there's an opportunity to come to MIT, take a test, do some labs and get credit and grade on the real class towards a degree. People from all over the world would be open to that approach.
Now, if all you want is the knowledge while participating in a really neat experiment, by all means, full steam ahead.
I have a degree in engineering from Stanford, which is one of the top engineering schools in the world. Do you know where I keep it? I gave it to my mother over 20 years ago since she liked to look at it. She died a long time ago. I haven't seen it since then, and I don't have any idea where it is. Would you like to know how many people have asked to see it other than my mother? The answer is zero. Would you like to know how many coworkers, employers, acquirers and partners have asked to see my credentials since I graduated? The answer is zero.
Credentials are completely useless in this field. They mean nothing. No one wants to see them, unless you are trying to emigrate to another country and have to prove you have a degree.
The reason one takes classes at MIT or Stanford is because they are known to have really good programs. The degree doesn't matter. The certificate doesn't matter. After you graduate, no one cares about that stuff.
Credentials are completely useless in this field. They mean nothing. No one wants to see them, unless you are trying to emigrate to another country and have to prove you have a degree.
The reason one takes classes at MIT or Stanford is because they are known to have really good programs. The degree doesn't matter. The certificate doesn't matter. After you graduate, no one cares about that stuff.
Do you list your degree on your resume? Do those approaching you with proposals for work know that you went to Stanford? I agree with your view that a degree itself isn't inherently valuable, but I wonder if you are able to measure its benefits so easily.
"Do you list your degree on your resume?"
Sure, it's on my CV. But I could say I had a law degree from Harvard there as well, just listing something proves little. It's been some time since I actually used a CV in my career, but when I did there was not once an attempt to validate any claims, my skills and talents were evaluated from the thinking I demonstrated and rapport I established in each interview, not from validation of credentials which never once happened.
"Do those approaching you with proposals for work know that you went to Stanford?"
Those who approach me and talk to me don't know anything about my education as far as I know, it's just not been discussed in years, my reputation and track record are what is important. I wouldn't even mention it here except as an example of a credential which I think that most assume is a big deal, but which in reality, practice, and life experience doesn't mean anything at all.
Hm, wracking my brain here to think who knows where I went to school. I'm pretty sure no one I work with. My (life) partner knows, but only because I'm sure it's come up in conversation, it's probably been years since I've even discussed it.
Anyway, the point of this is I see the potential of these classes as immense and able to change the world. I am also a bit cynical that that will happen. The power of an elite, expensive certification as a validation of class and not talent is too valuable. MIT is now saying (on their MITx web page) they intend to, after working out the kinks, start offering credentials with their MITx program and "validating" students identity. How this will work internationally one can only imagine. Remote classes can't really be validated as to who took the class: it's impossible unless they plan to monitor each student via a video camera, which is unlikely. Given that "identity validation" proves little, why even bother with it? Why not just allow anyone to take the class, given that it is intended to be free -- if education is the goal. But if certification is the goal and not education, then identity is very important since it's the certification and not what you know and what you can do that is important.
Sure, it's on my CV. But I could say I had a law degree from Harvard there as well, just listing something proves little. It's been some time since I actually used a CV in my career, but when I did there was not once an attempt to validate any claims, my skills and talents were evaluated from the thinking I demonstrated and rapport I established in each interview, not from validation of credentials which never once happened.
"Do those approaching you with proposals for work know that you went to Stanford?"
Those who approach me and talk to me don't know anything about my education as far as I know, it's just not been discussed in years, my reputation and track record are what is important. I wouldn't even mention it here except as an example of a credential which I think that most assume is a big deal, but which in reality, practice, and life experience doesn't mean anything at all.
Hm, wracking my brain here to think who knows where I went to school. I'm pretty sure no one I work with. My (life) partner knows, but only because I'm sure it's come up in conversation, it's probably been years since I've even discussed it.
Anyway, the point of this is I see the potential of these classes as immense and able to change the world. I am also a bit cynical that that will happen. The power of an elite, expensive certification as a validation of class and not talent is too valuable. MIT is now saying (on their MITx web page) they intend to, after working out the kinks, start offering credentials with their MITx program and "validating" students identity. How this will work internationally one can only imagine. Remote classes can't really be validated as to who took the class: it's impossible unless they plan to monitor each student via a video camera, which is unlikely. Given that "identity validation" proves little, why even bother with it? Why not just allow anyone to take the class, given that it is intended to be free -- if education is the goal. But if certification is the goal and not education, then identity is very important since it's the certification and not what you know and what you can do that is important.
One market I haven't seen people discuss regarding this is businesses doing a large amount of research. I actually believe Coursera/Udacity/etc are actually trying to disrupt the undergrad education market, however I think we might start to see more businesses take advantage of this. With MIT for example, anyone could take any course without being a student, but the cost was at least double what a normal student would pay. Who would do this? Cambridge companies that need their staff caught up to speed on nlp, ml or something else. I'm fairly sure that Stanford has a similar deal.
For companies doing research that want to send their staff to these programs the main benefit is they want their researchers to have a top notch education in the area, but the cons are that the courses are very expensive and you have to have your employee off campus for however many hours a week the class is. Now it's possible pay nothing, have your staff stay in the office, and still be taught by world class experts.
I'm sure Google has a reasonable number of employees that are great programmers but could probably benefit from some formal CS background. Now they can keep these people on campus, and give them access to great materials for free (and even if there is a cost for these eventually it will be much lower), and get them training by world-class experts.
In this scenario a certificate is all you really need since the employer can say "I at least know you put some actual effort into this". Many companies don't necessarily need more employees with CS masters, but would certainly like more people with a foundation in nlp or ml. The structure of these courses essentially allows research companies the option to create an 'in-house' degree, covering only the material they find competitively beneficial.
For companies doing research that want to send their staff to these programs the main benefit is they want their researchers to have a top notch education in the area, but the cons are that the courses are very expensive and you have to have your employee off campus for however many hours a week the class is. Now it's possible pay nothing, have your staff stay in the office, and still be taught by world class experts.
I'm sure Google has a reasonable number of employees that are great programmers but could probably benefit from some formal CS background. Now they can keep these people on campus, and give them access to great materials for free (and even if there is a cost for these eventually it will be much lower), and get them training by world-class experts.
In this scenario a certificate is all you really need since the employer can say "I at least know you put some actual effort into this". Many companies don't necessarily need more employees with CS masters, but would certainly like more people with a foundation in nlp or ml. The structure of these courses essentially allows research companies the option to create an 'in-house' degree, covering only the material they find competitively beneficial.
I'd love it if MITx courses could give a chance for real credit, rather than a certificate. That said, what incentive does MIT have to give real credit? It seems like it would only devalue taking these courses in person.
[deleted]
now the computers program the people
Read about SuperMemo for another take on computers programming people.