I tend the MOOC are going to be awesome for humanities instruction in some sense, but it will not revolutionize

courses in higher education except in those areas where there is currently no access except through the internet. The accountability of instruction just is not there yet in MOOC and in highly technical fields, this would be vital. I am not saying this is a bad thing, I don't think it is... it will probably recruit interests into universities, but if this is the model to replace them, it would be sad substitute for even small scale internet instruction.

I am very, very mixed about MOOCs but for reasons that have nothing to do with its (in)efficiency. I am not so much afraid of them as the way admin will try to profit from them. There is nothing inherently eliminationist about the them, but they are easily used that way.

Nik El Plated I use them to add to my computer skills for free and help keep me motivated. October 24, 2012 at 7:03am Like

C Derick Varn I think they are awesome, but I don't think they do the same thing higher ed does, and honestly I think that's why professors agree to do them, otherwise they would be undercutting their own jobs. October 24, 2012 at 7:06am Like

Nik El Plated Yeah, they are good supplements for me. October 24, 2012 at 7:18am Like

Scott Sargent Just wait. All those productivity gains that post-secondary ed is so very impervious to will come via the internet. And there COULD be more transparency and accountability and quality, too. October 24, 2012 at 8:09am Like

C Derick Varn Scott, productivity gains here would mean what? Do you actually think it would be a good thing? What has increased productivity meant in every other of the economy? And do you remember why Marxists call that an exploitation rate? October 24, 2012 at 8:11am Like 1

C Derick Varn I have seen Taylorism in education in Asia, you won't like it nearly as much as you think by the implications I see making here. October 24, 2012 at 8:11am Like 1

C Derick Varn Particularly because "quality" maintenance is in direct opposition to power laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law), and it will limit the production of said content, and has in almost every application despite the claims of internet optimists to the contrary.

Power law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org Apower lawis amathematicalrelationship between two quantities. When the frequenc...See More October 24, 2012 at 8:13am Like

C Derick Varn (For example, look at what the internet has done to books, increased production, but less likelihood that production actually results in any profits for the producers and increased unlikelihood of mass or even moderate access due too many choices in the economy). October 24, 2012 at 8:16am Like 1

Scott Sargent Information "wants" to become free. This has been going on for centuries. As time has passed, more information has become more freely available and more easily accessible. Education is or should be, anywaynothing more than the transfer of information to those who do not have it. This will empower people. So DON'T WORRY. As soon as YOUR generation comes of age and takes power every book ever written and every course taught everywhere will be available to everyone on the planet, and it will be as free as free can be. October 24, 2012 at 8:24am Like

C Derick Varn You know, the paradox of this information wants to be free is that in all areas this has happened, it has led to LESS access to information at the local level, less highly specialized information, and predominance of centralizing corporate figures. So all this liberal bullshit about free information is only meaningful if the things that keep the producers of information fed exist, and so far, they don't. Without that, power law will dictate that the information will be more commercialized, more

centralized, and more narrow because what produces it is more of all of those things even if the distribution mechanism is freer and more multiple form. Like most things in this age, this is looking solely at the distribution channels and not the production changes, and doing so with a romantic notion that is contradicted by tons of empirics about what has happened to information. I am all about opensource, but that's only meaningful if you can feed those that produce information, otherwise this is just a way to increase access to a more and more limited kind and type of information. You got a solution to that problem because "Information wants to be free" is not one. You're always talking about solutions, but you have to look at problems to get solutions and you aren't looking at it in this techno-optimist screeds that I have heard for 20 years.

". Education isor should be, anywaynothing more than the transfer of information to those who do not have it"

That is an ironically capitalist concept of education as if knowledge was simply a transfer. Yet it's not because knowledge is not just the acquiring of information. October 24, 2012 at 8:31am Like 1

C Derick Varn Knowledge is acquiring and applying information in a way that means it can be used, extrapolated from, and built above. Otherwise you are collecting trivia. October 24, 2012 at 8:32am Like 2

Scott Sargent The internet is really young. We don't know what to do with it yet. It took 100 years before we did anything other than print bibles with the printing press. Books and old dudes yammering away in front of classrooms is top down. The internet is very leveling and interactive, and so "applying" will be facilitated much more easily. I'm tellinya, it's gonna be ALL good, Derick. October 24, 2012 at 8:35am Like

Scott Sargent October 24, 2012 at 8:36am Like

Scott Sargent Oh, hang on. Didn't see your longer comment . . .

October 24, 2012 at 8:37am Like

C Derick Varn So yeah, information wants to be free and will be, but for that not to be negative you have to change the way producers of information can make a living. If you can't both range of information and quality will decline and this HAS HAPPENED in every information industry so far because we haven't come up with a non-price related way to feed the producers of information.

" The internet is very leveling and interactive, and so "applying" will be facilitated much more easily. I'm tellinya, it's gonna be ALL good, Derick."

The internet exists in the larger context of the social world, so let's assume the internet will level the gates, but how will we feed the producers of info? October 24, 2012 at 8:37am Like 1

C Derick Varn Oh. October 24, 2012 at 8:37am Like

Scott Sargent Dang. You write so fast! October 24, 2012 at 8:37am Like

C Derick Varn Hence so many mistakes. October 24, 2012 at 8:38am Like

C Derick Varn I think out loud here, I think I may have answered part of my question: do you think the internet will push people towards other means of supporting producers in order to keep their free stuff coming? October 24, 2012 at 8:38am Like

C Derick Varn That's what we haven't seen happen yet and desperately needs too. October 24, 2012 at 8:39am Like

Scott Sargent Yeah . . . did you just, like, have a gallon of coffee or something? So, hang on, I'm old and slow, lemme catch up here... October 24, 2012 at 8:40am Like

Jamie McAfee "Education isor should be, anywaynothing more than the transfer of information to those who do not have it"

"Let's all turn to page 34 of Paulo Frierre. 'Transfer' is generally more how we talk about banking than 'deposit,' so we'll just swap out that word, and . . . . " October 24, 2012 at 8:40am Like 1

Scott Sargent " do you think the internet will push people towards other means of supporting producers in order to keep their free stuff coming?" Yes . . . October 24, 2012 at 8:41am Like

C Derick Varn Well, then let's take a positive turn and talk about how to do that? October 24, 2012 at 8:41am Like 2

Jamie McAfee Why on earth would you think that? October 24, 2012 at 8:41am Like

Scott Sargent So, there are, I'm sure, a thousand ways to do this, but here's the one I've been thinking about for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS: October 24, 2012 at 8:42am Like

C Derick Varn "Why on earth would you think that?"- Who think what? October 24, 2012 at 8:43am Like

Scott Sargent You decide, as a polity, how much you want to spend on information. Then the more clicks and downloads the producers get, the more money they make. It's more efficient, because you cut out editors and publishers and university presidents and so on. October 24, 2012 at 8:44am Like

Jamie McAfee I don't think that the internet will push people toward other means of supporting producers. I think that people could harness the internet for that, but I don't have any reason to think something about "the internet" will do that. Apple makes more money, and musicians make less, etc. October 24, 2012 at 8:44am Like

Scott Sargent It's a very socialistic model I have in mind. You just budget whatever you want for information. Art, novels, music, 3D printing templates, you name it. October 24, 2012 at 8:48am Like 1

Scott Sargent And it's very open. Wanna teach, or take, a course? Physics, French . . . anything. Go ahead. If you teach and are good, you could make a very nice living. Maybe even become "rich." And taking the course would be free. For anyone on the planet. October 24, 2012 at 9:00am Like 1

Scott Sargent Anyway, I think the basic structure of the internet will compel something like this model. The people who are running things today need to die, but . . . that WILL happen.