Continuing in John Henry mode, imagine a contest between a living, breathing professor and a MOOC. The professor is teaching a classroom full of students. The other students are watching the superprofessor on video alone in their rooms, wherever in the world they happen to be. Who’s going to win?
Well, I can tell you right now that any history professor who did nothing but lecture in 15 minute chunks, following up on each chunk with a single multiple-choice question, during a job interview would never be hired at any university I’ve ever encountered. Good teaching always involves a give and take between the instructor and the student. When they don’t understand what you mean, you explain it to them a different way. You don’t repeat the same words over and over again (which is all Daphne Koller wants students to hear). That’s just one of many reasons why the live professor would beat the MOOC coming and going. It wouldn’t even be close.
What the MOOC does have is reach, but that’s the product of the medium by which it’s delivered, not the quality of education that MOOCs provide. Do we really want to sacrifice quality for access? If we educate the entire world and do nothing to solve systematic unemployment, the inferior education students get will not be worth whatever the MOOC providers try to charge for it.
That’s why the Harvard MOOC crew is trying to convince themselves of their own humanitarianism instead of just admitting that they’re in it for the money. This is from that Harvard graduate college alumni magazine article I cited the other day but which still isn’t online yet:
“The information glut has killed the Socratic method,” [Robert Lue, Faculty Director of HarvardX] says. “We have too much stuff to tell students, so we don’t have time to talk to students. Online learning will give us the opportunity to return to the primacy of human interaction.”
Problem 1: Socratic method? Really? What are students going to do, interrogate each other? Doesn’t there have to be an actual teacher involved in the conversation for the Socratic method to even apply?
Problem 2: Cutting down what you have to tell students so that they remember the important parts is the most important part of teaching! Indeed, I’ve been struggling with teaching history in a Googlized world for years now. As a result, I teach fewer facts and more skills because you really can look up just about every fact there is on the Internet. If MOOCs really are just jazzed-up textbooks, teaching complicated skills would be the most difficult thing possible to do with them.
With so many good justifications to oppose MOOCs available, perhaps the funniest thing about this Harvard grad college article is that even opponents there oppose MOOCs for elitist reasons:
“I’m afraid that this is going to destroy grad students,” one professor told me. “Not because of what it will do to elite universities, but other places. Why should a community college hire a new PhD when they can pipe in Stephen Greenblatt?”
Because Stephen Greenblatt will not be around to take questions.*
Yes, I appreciate some concern for the welfare of grad students, but nonetheless take a moment and think about the arrogance on display here. This anonymous denizen of Harvard Yard is assuming that Harvard professors are so much better than everyone else that merely their taped presence can improve upon the teaching of a living, breathing human trained anywhere else** – that someone who’s as accessible as the pope or Thomas Pynchon can teach you more than someone you can talk to during every class for the entire semester (and in office hours if that’s not enough). The Western Governors University experience suggests otherwise:
“In reviews of the school, one complaint is repeated ad nauseum, the lack of interaction with an actual professor. Students of Western Governors University often feel as if they are paying to teach themselves. There are “mentors” assigned to each student to help them get acclimated to online classes and assist them in any way they need, but the time between questions and answers is reported to be less than stellar.”
With MOOCs you don’t even get a mentor. How they expect to get anyone to pay for this kind of shoddy treatment someday is completely beyond me.
This is why I’ve decided to go completely over to the position long held by my friend and future debate partner, Historiann. MOOCs are a bubble. They’re like tulips, Florida real estate and Pets.com all rolled into one. It reminds me of the time I bought 100 shares of stock in the restaurant chain Boston Market. “They’re always packed,” I said to myself. Little did I realize that the company was losing money on every customer. I eventually lost everything I had paid for the shares.
Unfortunately, much of the money MOOCs will make will come from already cash-strapped universities, probably from funds that currently pay most of our salaries. Therefore, we non-superprofessors still need to work hard to end MOOC madness before it ends us, despite this new technology’s many obvious flaws.
* I feel bad for picking on Stephen Greenblatt because 1) To my knowledge he isn’t even teaching a MOOC and 2) I liked The Swerve (although I also enjoy Dan Brown novels so take my recs with a grain of salt). Still, having found such a softball question like that one, how could I not swing for the fences?
** Come to think of it, this also applies to professors trained at Harvard. After all, I got this article from a Harvard alum. It must have pissed him off too.