(no title)
ibrahima | 3 months ago
(I mean, I have no idea how Coursera/edX/etc are doing behind the scenes, but it doesn't seem like people talk about them the way they used to ~10 years ago.)
ibrahima | 3 months ago
(I mean, I have no idea how Coursera/edX/etc are doing behind the scenes, but it doesn't seem like people talk about them the way they used to ~10 years ago.)
TomasBM|3 months ago
I agree it's hard, but I think it's because initially the lecturers were involved in the online community, which can be tiring and unrewarding even if you don't have other obligations.
I think the courses should have purely standalone material that lecturers can publish, earn extra money, and refresh the content when it makes sense. Maybe platform moderators could help with some questions or grading, but it's even easier to have chatbot support for that nowadays. Also, platforms really need to improve.
So, I think the problem with MOOCs has been the execution, not the concept itself.
geodel|3 months ago
ndriscoll|3 months ago
TomasBM|3 months ago
I understand what you mean, but I disagree it's mostly or pure branding.
I'd argue that even watered down versions can be useful as a bridge to more advanced courses and material, provided you have access to both.
Personally, I benefited from that ML course by Andrew Ng, because I got the vocabulary and introductory math knowledge to proceed to courses and textbooks on linear algebra. It wasn't the only thing that helped, sure, but it helped.
There were also other STEM and non-STEM MOOCs which brought me free knowledge I probably would've never pursued or paid for otherwise.
geodel|3 months ago