Slashdot Mirror


The $100 Masters Degree From Udacity

mikejuk writes "In an interview with Udacity founder Sebastian Thrun, it was revealed that he hopes to offer a Masters degree for only $100, and is close to offering a full computer science degree. 'There are unfortunately some rough edges between our fundamental class CS101 and the next class up, when this is done I believe we can get an entire computer science education completely online and free and I think this is the first time this has happened in the history of humanity.' The latest course from Udacity is on statistics, and he is hoping to top the 160,000 sign up for his first online class on AI. It is also hoped to be the first class where students can visit a testing center to get their achievments formally certified."

130 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Master of First Post by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    Master of first dupe!

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  2. Future of Education by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This here is the future of education. Eventually we'll formalize this further by enabling a quick download directly to our brains that brings everyone up to speed fast regarding the facts of science, discipline, critical thinking, analysis.

    What education will never be able to teach us is morality. Bertrand Russel, the great philosopher once was asked what he would offer the future generations.

    Here is what he had to say about it. He said two things, one intellectual and one moral; when you study any matter, ask yourself only what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out; the moral thing is love is wise, hatred is foolish.

    With education like the $100 masters degree, we have the first part down fine. The rest of our development needs to focus on the second.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Future of Education by Auroch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This here is the future of education. Eventually we'll formalize this further by enabling a quick download directly to our brains that brings everyone up to speed fast regarding the facts of science, discipline, critical thinking, analysis.

      It'll never happen.

      First of all, there is an entrenched education style that has existed since the time of plato and aristotle, of a face to face student/teacher relationship. Also, We also have huge, multi-billion dollar institutions, with huge multi-national partnerships that ensure standardization within the education system. Direct downloads to our brains will not happen, for the same reason that we don't have jetpacks. It is too far in the future, and too complicated a technology - we're at a point where the question is still IF, not HOW.

      Sure, the pendulum will swing towards online learning and decentralized institutions, but the traditional model of education has held up because it is (generally) robust, and closed to abuse. We'll probably see much more online education - and it'll be cheaper - but it won't be free, and it certainly won't be easy, and it will eventually become accessible to only the upper class (as education always is).

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    2. Re:Future of Education by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      Eventually we'll formalize this further by enabling a quick download directly to our brains that brings everyone up to speed fast regarding the facts of science, discipline, critical thinking, analysis.

      I'm not sure that will work. A lot of my math professors (and physics profs) had open book tests. People still did as good or bad in them as without the books. Why? Because you can have a photographic memory, and memorize formulas and all that, but if you don't understand them or how to apply them, you're still boned. And with the limited time, there was no way someone could get up to speed and still finish the test.

      Now maybe one day we'll be able to download understanding or at least have a program that stimulates the neural connections to make it happen, but I think putting things in our mental storage without letting our own CPU process them is kinda useless.

      For example, what is the use of downloading the tenets of critical thinking if... you never think critically about them while doing so?

    3. Re:Future of Education by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it will eventually become accessible to only the upper class (as education always is).

      A famous man once said, give a man a fish, he eats today and owes you a fish forever. But teach a man to fish, and he'll be competing with you for fish tomorrow.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:Future of Education by craigminah · · Score: 1

      $100 degrees and the ability to download information right into our brains will devalue a degree to the point where you're punished for not having one. Then everyone will need a doctorate to stand out...until there are either $100 doctorates and/or downloadable doctoral information into the brain. Either way we're just increasing the minimum threshhold to stand out. The real money is in gathering, sifting, and publishing that information for download...then we'll also need someone to oversee that information and make sure people don't inject "viruses" like information contrary to real life experience that lead people down the wrong path. Ultimately, this is a horrible idea as governments will use this to program and control us.

    5. Re:Future of Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to pay off student loans and compete with an impoverished Third World workers because not enough people talk about morality.

      We could all be harnessing modern technology to work 3 day weeks and live in ease and luxury. But we don't, because that's no fun for the people at the top.

    6. Re:Future of Education by Auroch · · Score: 5, Informative

      it will eventually become accessible to only the upper class (as education always is).

      A famous man once said, give a man a fish, he eats today and owes you a fish forever. But teach a man to fish, and he'll be competing with you for fish tomorrow.

      Another famous man (pratchett) said - Make a man a fire, you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    7. Re:Future of Education by WaywardGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm almost done with Udacity's free on-line robotic car course. It's fascinating, probably more for the new ideas in teaching than the actual course, though the course is pretty good. I don't know where this is heading, but the impact on the world of having 160,000 people take the online course has to outweigh the impact of teaching a lecture once a semester at Stanford.

      The old system works, and offers opportunity for personal growth that's so far simply not available on line. I learned more from my peers in Berkeley undergrad engineering than from actual course work. I see no good online substitute for having a group of super-geek peers who love to hack stuff, build stuff, and pull off audacious stunts. Communicating by e-mail is just not the same as an all nighter group session of mathematical noodling on an unsolved problem.

      So, somewhere there will be a new balance, where we take advantage of this super affordable access to learning, while somehow giving our young people a college experience. I don't know where it's heading, but it will be exciting to watch.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    8. Re:Future of Education by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe, maybe not.

      The idea of a $100 master's degree is subversive, especially considering that a master's is the basic qualification to hold a professorship at a modern university. It attacks the one of the main roles that academic degrees have assumed in our society: being a certification of social class. If there's any doubt of that consider this: recent studies have shown that the average amount of time college students spend studying has dropped from 24 hours/week to 15. Some have put the current figure as low as 10-13 hours/week spent outside of class. Even engineering students spend a mere nineteen hours per week outside of class; today's *nerds* spend five fewer hours per week studying than the average student in their grandparent's generation.

      This lack of rigor is reflected in how degrees are used after graduation. Most jobs that require a nonspecific bachelor's degree (i.e. not in an area like engineering) could be done by an intelligent and well-read high school graduate. Many jobs that require master's degrees could be done by a bachelor's degree holder in that field. It is difficult (although obviously not impossible) for someone who has to work to put bread on the table to obtain those kinds of credentials. So a bachelor's degree reflects having middle class parents more than it does intelligence, knowledge, or intellectual sophistication.

      Now if you can get the actual education for $100, then there'd be no justification to withhold accreditation from a program like this. That would mean that *anybody* could get degrees to use as a credential provided they can do the work. That would completely undermine the higher education system in the country as it now stands. It might spell the end of widespread college education.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Future of Education by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Just because they have the degree doesn't mean they will be able to utilize the knowledge.

      There are plenty of pinheads out there with degrees who have never been able to get decent jobs.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    10. Re:Future of Education by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ya, this is more an exercise in wondering how large classroom sizes could be, if you could seat 160k people in a room, and how much interaction you need with a human being on the other end.

      Lots of professors would be quite happy to focus on research full time and not have to teach. Pick out the good teachers, the good textbooks, and just play a video of their lectures in a classroom for people who want to show up and interact with other students. The problem with that plan is that you don't then build personal relationships with professors or grad students or other students. Most of us who have done some sort of technical degree can point to an instance or two of a concept we just didn't get in lecture or from the book, and it took a TA or other students to explain it to us... eventually.

      Research still needs to happen with or without the teaching component of universities. But the huge mentoring relationship that happens there, and the social connections, those are a major portion of the experience. How do you know if you want to be a researcher if you don't meet other researchers? A 100 dollar online course is about the same thing as a 100 dollar textbook just more interactive. Did you buy the book? Did you read the book? Or in the new media, did you watch the lecture? It's useful as a reference, it's probably not even bad to teach yourself. But it's not the same as going to university. In the real world you have to teach yourself a lot, whether thats from books or the web or whatever. So in that sense udacity probably will find a significant market in replacing textbooks with at least partially interactive web enabled experiences, for about the same price. It might also enable smaller schools to make available more esoteric topics they don't have expertise in, which is good.

    11. Re:Future of Education by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are enough of a self starter to take and finish an online degree, you are enough of a self starter to start and run your own business. Then your "salary" will only depend on the quality of your work and market demand for your product. Then it comes down to having the right product at the right time, same as it has always been. The difference being that now businesspeople can empower themselves with knowledge without taking on debt. There is no set of circumstances where that isn't a major plus for humanity.

    12. Re:Future of Education by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      $100 degrees and the ability to download information right into our brains will devalue a degree to the point where you're punished for not having one.

      We're already at that point with degrees which cost $50,000+. A reduction of that to $100 would be a step forward.

      I've got a bachelors degree and 20+ years of experience in software development. I need a masters degree in CS like I need a third eye in the center of my forehead. Yet I see a lot of jobs out there demanding the Masters nowadays, and with applicant tracking systems being the way they are, that means if you don't have one your resume/application will be discarded before ever being seen by a human being. A $100 Masters would be just the ticket to avoid that. (Sure, it wouldn't be accredited... these tracking systems wouldn't know that)

    13. Re:Future of Education by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Then there is Photoshop....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Future of Education by echucker · · Score: 2

      Teach a man to fish, and he'll forget about eating.

    15. Re:Future of Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol @ "Middle Class"

      My parents were middle class before FAFSA got a hold of them. Student loans for my sibblings have bankrupted them. Education is for people too poor to have an "expected family contribution" or rich enough to pay in cash. Middle class get's screwed. Next time I see some dude with a diploma decked out in UFC clothing and chains I'll think of your assertion that it's a symbol of social class. Increasingly so, certification of poor.

      My favorite part is how you can lock in tuition rates using a 529 Plan... if you have the liquid capital. Everybody else get's soaked paying 133% of their freshmen tuition for their senior year.

      I abstained from the right of passage. It was not fun getting here but now I make more money than starting pay for a fresh graduate. If I ever hit a glass ceiling I'll laugh all the way to the bank with my EFC of 0 after taking a years vacation from the workforce. Nicest thing you can do for your kids is take up smoking crack the year before they graduate high school.

      They should rename financial aid "Injustice 121" as it's most kid's first exposure to how this world really works. It's an institution of desensitizing them to frauds like the TSA and War on Drugs.

    16. Re:Future of Education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Funny

      A famous man once said, give a man a fish, he eats today and owes you a fish forever. But teach a man to fish, and he'll be competing with you for fish tomorrow.

      Actually, what the proponent of this adage really meant was "teach a man to fish, then for the rest of his life he'll have to pay through the nose to rent tackle, boat and launch privileges from you because you own the only bait shop and dock because the only body of water around is your private lake, you bastard!

    17. Re:Future of Education by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Eventually we'll formalize this further by enabling a quick download directly to our brains that brings everyone up to speed fast regarding the facts of science, discipline, critical thinking, analysis.

      I think Facts will be downloadable in the future... I am not so sure about the rest of that though.

      I think that certain "habits" that engender discipline might be downloadable but you are talking about modifying "free will" here.

      I am unsure about critical thinking. Again, you could teach "habits" that generally lead to critical thinking, but there is a problem with that which I will point out in a moment.

      Analysis... implies understanding, which requires imagination... which is also required for critical thinking (e.g. "what if"). I am not even sure imagination is definable. It requires huge amounts of generic processing power instead of dedicated circuitry like processes and facts require. It requires huge amounts of immediate storage space for quick recall.

      In other words, you are talking about physically rebuilding the brain. Yes, there will be physical changes when data points and processes are uploaded to a brain, but they will be relatively minor rearrangements of neurons. The other stuff seems like it would be much more ... um, altering. But then, I am not a neuroscientist (SP?).

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    18. Re:Future of Education by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Are you the fucker selling fishing licenses around here, dude? Now I know where you (digitally) live! ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    19. Re:Future of Education by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I would bet that computers and the internet are more related to the decrease in study time than any "lack of rigor". The ability to find and organize information that computers give you bring massive efficiency gains. Going through the K-12 system (I never went to college) without the benefit of the internet, I can easily see the time it took me to write those little 15-20 page papers in high school being cut in half with today's technology at my disposal.
      Continuing on the topic of "rigor"; my mother has a master's degree from CSU Sacramento and my wife had a master's degree from CSU Fresno. For a reason that eludes me, my wife's English degree required a higher level of math than my mother's business degree.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    20. Re:Future of Education by feranick · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you. Education is not just taking classes (online or not). It's about interacting with peers, it's about discussion, it's about interaction and inquiry. It's about giving the student the ability and possibility to learn in a real research environment, to face criticism to your idea or project (rather than for what you should know about your coursework). In other words, it gives you the ability to actively grow rather than absorbing possibilities. And let's not forget the networking that comes by going to a real school. These days you will only find a job with a proper networking and I still have to see how you can build it with online classes. It's not just a mean to the end, but networking is the manifestation of your ability to show your value.

    21. Re:Future of Education by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Pretty much so. All of my physical chemistry tests were open book. Having the facts at hand didn't save half of the course from failing badly. (Including me in Quantum Physics II).

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    22. Re:Future of Education by jfengel · · Score: 1

      For making yourself up a fake ID so that you can sneak into the registrar's office and hack the records?

    23. Re:Future of Education by GofG · · Score: 1

      3 day weeks? Technology?

      Napoleon won, not Snowball, bro.

      --
      GFA/M/S d-- s: a--- C++++ UBL++$ P+ L+++ !E- W++ N+ !o K- w--- !O !M !V PS++ PE Y+ PGP+ t+++ 5- X+ R tv@ b++ DI++++ D+ G
    24. Re:Future of Education by tzanger · · Score: 1

      I think that your networking requirement is correct, but you don't get much out of networking in university or college. You get your jobs from networking with employers or those who can employ you much less than your peers who are already employed, and you gain access to that through many avenues in addition to the job fairs and co-op opportunities at school.

    25. Re:Future of Education by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure 100 dollars per course or 100 dollars per degree changes the argument much. A degree right now costs, on the low end, 25k not counting living expenses, drop that to 4k or 100 dollars and you're still completely transforming the system.

      A lecture with quizzes is still a quiz. Who marks the quiz? What happens if you get it wrong? How do you learn to improve?

      I picked the analogy of a textbook for a reason. Textbooks have sample questions (and sample answers), the trick with all education is how you verify that the person did the work, and how do you help them fix what they get wrong.

    26. Re:Future of Education by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      First up marketing lie "$100 degrees" is a lie, note "Pearson VUE which will offer a secure testing environment so that, if a student chooses, they can be certified as having taken Udacity classes". No certification, no degree and no details on cost of certifications let's guess many thousands of dollars (each and every course over a four year period, including repeat charges for failures, come in suckers).

      Basically online courses are pretty empty and should be largely free. Online tutorial, with webcams, where you interact with other students and an experienced tutors should be paid for. Certification costs that part that means you actually get a degree should be declared up front, in total, none of this bullshit snark $100 degrees (where each failure in certification means they make more, retesting).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    27. Re:Future of Education by benhattman · · Score: 1

      I believe the biggest costs for college are staff and facilities. If you can cut one or both of these expenditures and keep the same level of quality, you'll go a long way towards fixing the problem of education costs.

      Suppose a professor at some U makes $100k a year and teaches 5 courses in that time. As a student, the research is nice, but not really what you're there for, so for just the purpose of class time, you're tuition needs to get $20k a course to the instructor. Pretend a class has 20 students in it on average and the students will need to pay $1k a course just for tuition.

      Now, say there's a program where the instructors materials are prepared for him/her so they have little prep time. Throw in that tests will be designed and proctored by some third party (and provided somewhere around free). Suddenly, all you need is someone familiar enough with the material to answer questions at the end of the lecture and assist students during office hours. There are probably plenty of people who wouldn't mind sitting in on a 40 minute video lecture and then answering questions about the material for 10-15 minutes. Someone with a Master's Degree or a BS + relevant experience could do that. And if that person demands only $70k a year and can sit in on 5 lectures a day (for three quarters) plus office hours (6 hours a day and summers off for $70k is not bad!) the lecture costs would drop to less than $5k a course. Put the same 20 students in each course, and their costs drop to $250.

      This doesn't solve the facilities costs, but it's pretty obvious that such a change could save students thousands to tens of thousands over a 4 year BA/BS. Imagine cutting $10k off of the average 25 y/o's student loans, and you can see what kind of impact programs like these can make...if they do the job well enough.

  3. Good and bad by Nursie · · Score: 1

    Good
    - anyone can take the course
    - it's very affordable

    Bad
    - how ya gonna stop cheating? With an entirely remote degree course you can't. Therefore, to an employer, it's not worth much.

    (Yeah, sure, whatever, start the snark about how degrees aren't worth anything anyway, I disagree)

    1. Re:Good and bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Bad- how ya gonna stop cheating? With an entirely remote degree course you can't

      I know you don't like to read the article, or visit the website. But you could, at the very least, read the fucking summary before posting your drivel.

      "It is also hoped to be the first class where students can visit a testing center to get their achievments formally certified.""

    2. Re:Good and bad by I_am_Jack · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of accredited universities that offer fully online MBA's and other graduate degree programs. I have a friend who's getting his MBA from University of Liverpool this autumn. It's taken him about the same as it would have if he'd gone to a brick and mortar university, and he worked just as hard online as he would have in class. Whether someone cheats and gets by with it is up to the professor.

    3. Re:Good and bad by contrapunctus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's really really unfortunate that you used MBA as an example.

    4. Re:Good and bad by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      Especially since here, cheating and getting away with it earns bonus credit!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    5. Re:Good and bad by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      - how ya gonna stop cheating? With an entirely remote degree course you can't. Therefore, to an employer, it's not worth much.

      As opposed to IRL courses? People cheat their way through "valuable" degree programs all the time, and employers do not really care. Those employers who are really concerned with whether their students actually know what their degree asserts they should know give job candidates tests.

      Yeah, sure, whatever, start the snark about how degrees aren't worth anything anyway, I disagree

      Considering the number of people I have met with a BS in CS who cannot even explain the P vs. NP problem, I think that at least a large number of degrees in CS are poor certifications of knowledge.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Good and bad by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

      As opposed to IRL courses? People cheat their way through "valuable" degree programs all the time, and employers do not really care. Those employers who are really concerned with whether their students actually know what their degree asserts they should know give job candidates tests.

      Sure but if it's all through the computer, how do you know they didn't just get someone else to do it for them, for another hundred bucks?

      (yes, I now realise this is not what is proposed in TFA)

      Considering the number of people I have met with a BS in CS who cannot even explain the P vs. NP problem, I think that at least a large number of degrees in CS are poor certifications of knowledge.

      I've been a software engineer for 12 years now, and many things I learned for my CD degree at university have benefited my work immensely.

      Not that though.

    7. Re:Good and bad by Nursie · · Score: 1

      stupid fingers.... CS degree.

    8. Re:Good and bad by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Sure but if it's all through the computer, how do you know they didn't just get someone else to do it for them, for another hundred bucks?

      You think having a human standing there watching people helps? I have seen students hide thumb drives under their desks, so that the next set of students taking a CS101 exam can cheat. I have seen students writing codes of dots and shapes on the sides of exams to pass answers on to their friends. I have seen students pay for their homework to be done by other students.

      People who are not interested in learning, who just want a job ticket, seem to have little difficulty with cheating at current universities.

      I've been a software engineer for 12 years now, and many things I learned for my [CS] degree at university have benefited my work immensely.

      Not that though.

      That is because a CS degree is not a vocational IT associates degree or some sort of vocational certification; computer science is a well developed field that covers more than just "how to program using an object oriented language." The P vs. NP problem is not just an important theoretical problem, it is a problem with immense practical significance. That is why it is considered one of the most important questions in computer science, as opposed to other, lesser-known questions about lower bounds (e.g. the 3SUM problem).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Good and bad by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You can't cheat on the in person qualification exam. Or rather, you can't cheat any more easily than someone cheating their way through a regular program could.

    10. Re:Good and bad by thesandtiger · · Score: 2

      For one of my graduate degrees, about half of the classes were on-line (public health, and the on-line classes were largely because all of us were scattered throughout the world working in various relevant capacities). The other half were more or less seminar style classes focusing on discussion of various topics relating to our more narrow focus within public health.

      The on-line classes were not bad, and were certainly challenging, especially when we had to collaborate in teams, but there was an interpersonal dimension that wass lacking. I couldn't learn as much from my classmates as I would have in a classroom environment because we didn't have all of those incidental discussions that come about from running into each other outside of class. My in-person classes gave me a richer appreciation of the field and different elements of it, different perspectives on it, because there was so much conversation that wasn't just about coursework and didn't take any real effort to have.

      Sme of the best ideas I had - ideas which I have integrated into my current work in the field - came about because I ran into one of my classmates in the university cafeteria and we started taking about how absolutely disgusting some of the food presentation areas must be, given several thousand people per day coming throu there and pawing everything, picking it up and putting it back if they don't want it. That kind of interaction wouldn't have happened online because it actually takes effort to communicate online, you don't randomly bump into each other, and often times there's such a delay between missives that only the essentials are put into it.

      Online courses are great for pure data dumps, but I think they are seriously lacking when it comes to inspiring real collaboration.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  4. Mass Produced education. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am on the fence with this.
    The only way you can get $100 for a degree in education is to mass produce it. Pre-Recorded Lectures, Online articles, Mutable choice tests, all done online. Now granted some colleges nearly teach like that, a professor with a well practiced rehearsed lectures, then you do you multiple choice tests, then you got your class credit...
    While you may learn, and can get accreditation. It creates a culture of mediocre education. This takes out some of the human elements that are both good and bad. If you are able being able to be noticed by a professor and working with them on his research, having your work properly critiqued.
    When I went to college for Computer Science, I came in already knowing how to program, and I was working programming, but I wanted to learn more then just the core requirements, I wanted to learn the nuances. While some students in my class who passed they got the basics, I was able to use education and the work directly with my professors to hone my skills and make me better. I know I used up more then $100 expense on my education.

    However I think a hybrid approach would be a good match. There are some classes, that I didn't like spending thousands of dollars on, just because I had to take them, I would much rather pay a lower rate, and take the mediocre online class to get the credit, and save some money. But save the classes I am actually interested in with live people and professors.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Mass Produced education. by Dr+Fro · · Score: 2

      I'll second your statement in the first paragraph. It may not be the best option, but I don't see what you're describing isn't equivalent to half of my classes where I only ever saw the TA teach, or the Prof was there but simply read off slides. A Prof that only teaches to justify a salary isn't better than a pre-recorded lecture.

      --
      ********************
      I object to Intellect without Discipline.
    2. Re:Mass Produced education. by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "However I think a hybrid approach would be a good match. There are some classes, that I didn't like spending thousands of dollars on, just because I had to take them, I would much rather pay a lower rate, and take the mediocre online class to get the credit, and save some money. But save the classes I am actually interested in with live people and professors."

      With absolutely no offense intended, what you want makes perfect sense, but it is more of a technical certification than a college degree.

      A college degree is an indication that the student is well-rounded, has a breadth of knowledge and not just depth of knowledge in a particular area, as with a technical certification. There is nothing wrong with a technical certification (think "Master Plumber or Electrician", not MSCE).

      The classes you dismiss (classes you "had to take") don't have to be of interest to you, but are the differentiator between a college degree and a technical certification. If someone presents themselves to me as a graduate of, say, Harvard, with a CS degree, I expect them to know more that computer science topics - I expect them to be fairly well-rounded. But that (apparently) isn't what you want, nor is it likely what your potential employers are looking for particularly, but the college degree is the only game in town to denote a certain level of education on a subject.

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:Mass Produced education. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this just a US attitude though?

      In the UK there is no requirement to take other subjects during the course of a degree. You go to university to study one subject, and you study that subject only.

      Hell, I dropped all non-science/math subjects at the age of 15, with my full-time education from then until graduation entirely devoted to physics, chemistry, mathematics and CS.

    4. Re:Mass Produced education. by mdf356 · · Score: 1

      It may be U.S. only (I hope so!) Others can talk all they want about "well-rounded" but the economic reality is that English, History, etc., courses do not produce graduates who earn more money. And so the only way those departments survive, since they can't on their own merits, is by forcing all students, some of whom *will* increase their earning potential, to take them.

      It's pure economics -- there's a bunch of economically useless professors, who have plenty of time to petition the President of the school or the state legislature about why their brand of "well-rounded" is so useful, and thereby gain a fraction of a lot of student's tuition, instead of the very small piece they'd otherwise have.

      Now ask yourself this: is college the only time in my life I am able to read classical literature or study art history or any of these other things that somehow make one well-rounded? Of course not. So the idea that one needs to study this in college is ludicrous, except to those departments that don't produce economic value trying to justify their existence.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    5. Re:Mass Produced education. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may be U.S. only (I hope so!) Others can talk all they want about "well-rounded" but the economic reality is that English, History, etc., courses do not produce graduates who earn more money. And so the only way those departments survive, since they can't on their own merits, is by forcing all students, some of whom *will* increase their earning potential, to take them.

      It's pure economics -- there's a bunch of economically useless professors, who have plenty of time to petition the President of the school or the state legislature about why their brand of "well-rounded" is so useful, and thereby gain a fraction of a lot of student's tuition, instead of the very small piece they'd otherwise have.

      Now ask yourself this: is college the only time in my life I am able to read classical literature or study art history or any of these other things that somehow make one well-rounded? Of course not. So the idea that one needs to study this in college is ludicrous, except to those departments that don't produce economic value trying to justify their existence.

      I work for an engineering firm. We don't hire writers to write our reports. The engineers and scientists are expected to know how to do that in addition to their primary focus of study. It would be wonderful if clients would accept our projects with no report, but for some crazy reason they like documentation.

      Literature and grammar classes are useful in the STEM fields. Peers and clients both expect well-written reports/papers, and they can tell when someone didn't pay attention to those classes in school.

      Oh, and for history classes not being useful, you'd get laughed at for not knowing of major historical facts in mainstream society if conversing to someone with a bit of intellect.

      Philosophy teaches you how to think logically using words. Life isn't all logic gates and mathematical proofs.

      Sociology provides insights into how the group or herd thinks. There can be a huge mutual benefit from knowing that as it can help you convey your thoughts and knowledge more effectively.

      I am a scientist who graduated from a liberal arts curriculum, and I'm very glad to have the additional basic courses in non-math/science fields to help me better converse with all people in my society as it opens doors that otherwise would be unavailable to me. There's tremendous value in it, and I've seen it benefit my fellow alumni as well.

    6. Re:Mass Produced education. by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      A college degree should show those things, but in reality, at least in the US these days, it seems more and more it's just a vocational certificate.

      I work as a researcher at a university and recently was auditing several courses I was interested in outside of my discipline, and I ran into so many students (both grad and undergrad) who were incredibly limited in their knowledge of anything outside of their major or graduate concentration or even, in many cases, inside their major/concentration that wasn't very, very closely related to their primary interest. Even worse, many of the students I encountered we're absolutely horrible writers and very, very poor readers as well, unable to do more than barely functional writing and often unable to appreciate nuance in a text, preferring instead to be hit over the head with bald statements. And worse than all of that, most of the students seemed to not care about, or even resent, any coursework that wasn't immediately relevant to heir major/concentration or vocational goals. They wanted to be highly specialized insects, and we're proud of it!

      We very much need to reform education in the US. What is often taught in high-schools really should have been covered in elementary schools, and what is taught in the first two years of mst undergrad educations should be covered in high-school. We need also to have a more formalized step between hi-school and university that is focused on vocational programs, leaving university for those who wish to actually get a broad education, and graduate school for more academically inclined types who want to actually study the field. Our current system serves most people poorly, though it does make some institutions very wealthy.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    7. Re:Mass Produced education. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      "Mutable choice" was pretty bemusing, too...

    8. Re:Mass Produced education. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would hate to live in a world were every action was done towards gaining more money. Whatever happened to bettering ourselves and the rest of humanity?

    9. Re:Mass Produced education. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The classes you dismiss (classes you "had to take") don't have to be of interest to you, but are the differentiator between a college degree and a technical certification. If someone presents themselves to me as a graduate of, say, Harvard, with a CS degree, I expect them to know more that computer science topics - I expect them to be fairly well-rounded.

      However, none of that well-roundedness actually implies that they can THINK. Being a walking encyclopedia is useless even if it covers a wide variety of subjects. Personally, I think this misconception of "was exposed to a wide variety of stimuli" is equivalent to "this person can think and solve problems"... and the reverse, "this person was not formally introduced to a wide variety of topics" is equivalent to "this person could not possibly be able to actually think in useful ways".

      Ah well, the primitive filters work better than no filters or relying on some moron's judgement as to the quality of the person being hired.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    10. Re:Mass Produced education. by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      Even worse, many of the students I encountered we're absolutely horrible writers and very, very poor readers as well, unable to do more than barely functional writing and often unable to appreciate nuance in a text, preferring instead to be hit over the head with bald statements.

      Oh, the irony...

      Sorry, but apostrophe abuse is a pet peeve of mine.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    11. Re:Mass Produced education. by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking as well: With only 100$, you can't possibly pay someone to give 1:1 feedback to the students on their work, discuss matters related to the subject, tutoring, and advising which directions a student that the tutor KNOWS could take etc. Especially, you can't write a thesis this way - its quite dependent on a lot of interaction with your supervisor(s)!

      I did my BSc and MSc in Physics at a european public* university (Oslo), and from the beginning we had a lot of opportunity to discuss with our tutors, who where sometimes professors, sometimes PhD-students or good MSc students hired to do the tutoring. As a MSc-student, I also spent a lot of time with my supervisors, traveling multiple times to CERN, including staying there for two whole summers to work with people there and doing experimental work. The final MSc thesis work took a year to write (two full semesters) - something you can't really do all on your own. And then it had to be graded, meaning that three professors had to read all the 170-something dense pages of physics, maths, and computing, and finally grill me on it.

      Additionally, I was TA'ing fresher students, learning them the basics of computational and experimental physics, probably bringing in quite a bit more than 100$ per student per course...

      And then one thing you can't really replace in an on-line program: Counless hours discussing the subjects (and many other things) with my fellow students. Sometimes on a whiteboard filled with equations and diagrams in the physics student association kitchen/reading hall/party room, sometimes at a TA session, sometimes over a coffe or beer, and often into the late hours...

      *=> It's payed by the governement - all the good universities here are. And I'm shure I cost a lot more than 100$ just in expenses - I wouldn't be surprised if it was more like 100'000$ at the end of the two progams. And then you can add that you automatically get good-terms loans, parts of which gets converted into stipends when you pass the exams...

    12. Re:Mass Produced education. by bungo · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is that you appear to think that the only way to have knowledge in other areas is via formal education. I know huge amounts of US, European, Chinese, Japanese history, but I never studied it at university (and I'm not from any of those places). I've read books on philosophy, but not because I was obliged.

      I already have a computing qualification, but I'm now doing a BSc in Math part time. I don't know how much you've studied math, but there is sooooo much to learn, than in a degree with only math subjects taken, there isn't enough time to learn significant amounts in more than one or two fields - for everything else, you just get a superficial knowledge. And, to really learn more advanced topics in just one area, it looks like I'll need to take a masters.

      Being well rounded is why we have high school. It looks like the US high school education system doesn't give you the rounded general education, so instead you have to get it at university. Most other university education systems that I know of don't work like that.

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    13. Re:Mass Produced education. by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you were attempting humor, but it would have been cool if you actually contributed something to the discussion instead of just taking pot-shots at obvious typos.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    14. Re:Mass Produced education. by benhattman · · Score: 1

      I'm worried about society if most people think like you.

      The way almost all real innovation occurs is when somebody(s) combine information/processes/expertise/whatever from seemingly unrelated fields. That's the keystone of why education is so valuable to a society. It puts a bunch of unrelated facts in front of people and gives them a chance to do something amazing with them.

      There is real value in general education. And, I'm glad my degree included studies that are useless to my immediate needs.

  5. Missing the point by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    It really isn't about the cost totaly. His point is that going to school, mastering some aspect of a field and going about your way for the rest of your life isn't working anymore. We constantly have to re-invent ourselves with new skills because things change so rapidly. Udacity will aid in solving that problem and make it cost effective.

    1. Re:Missing the point by DogDude · · Score: 1

      A real education isn't about job training.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Missing the point by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      We constantly have to re-invent ourselves with new skills because things change so rapidly.

      On the surface, things may change rapidly. Fundamentally, though, things change slowly. A trendy language or toolkit is just a surface change, perhaps one that introduces a new style of programming. On the other hand, beneath the surface, things have not changed all that much; we still have object oriented programming, we still have relational databases and ORMs, parallel programming is still hard and poorly understood, we still have the three tiered (or N-tiered) model, etc. Styles, names, and trends change quickly, but fundamental issues and designs do not.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Missing the point by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Then try getting a job without an education.

    4. Re:Missing the point by DogDude · · Score: 1

      What you said doesn't relate to what I said in any kind of meaningful way.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Missing the point by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You claimed that education isn't about getting a job, when it clearly is. If you want to take extra classes, no-one is stopping you, but to force them on people by holding their future hostage is rather barbaric.

    6. Re:Missing the point by DogDude · · Score: 1

      No, getting an education should not be about getting a job. For many people, it is, and those people are missing out on some important things in life. An education teaches people to think and reason and eventually become a fully formed, thinking individual. Job training is about pushing buttons. What you're suggesting is short sighted, and wrong.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  6. Key Word "Hope" by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It isn't news that someone "hopes" to do something, and the gap between offering a complete Computer Science Masters Degree and working out the "rough edges between our fundamental class CS101 and the next class up" state they are in now is quite immense.

    Decoded: They are having a problem coming up with a second semester CS class.

    This works out to about $10/class I figure, maybe less - I fully suspect the degree they will offer is worth every penny, but not a penny more - and you won't "fool" anyone with this Masters degree, this is on the same level as the mail-order priest ordinations that were once offered in the back of magazines like Rolling Stone.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Key Word "Hope" by mattr · · Score: 1

      They use hexamesters so CS102 would be the next 1/6 of a year..

    2. Re:Key Word "Hope" by mdf356 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fully suspect the degree they will offer is worth every penny, but not a penny more - and you won't "fool" anyone with this Masters degree

      I, as a interviewer, won't be "fooled". But since I work with some brilliant software people who never got a college degree, it won't necessarily be a barrier to getting at least a phone interview. If the interviewee knows their stuff, it doesn't matter how they learned it.

      I mean, with someone who has 20 years experience, do you care if they went to Harvard, Stanford, or the University of Kansas? Of course not, you care if they're smart and have some relevant skills. A lot of times as an interviewer I don't even care if they have the relevant skills (i.e. I work in the storage industry, but candidates don't need to know anything about storage or filesystems to get a job here -- I certainly didn't know that when I started).

      As an interviewer I care about two things, essentially: can you think, and do you understand some CS theory? If you can do the first but don't know the second, you can still get a job, we just won't start you as a senior level engineer.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
  7. No thesis/dissertation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I personally see no value in this kind of master's degree if there is no need to write a thesis/dissertation.

    1. Re:No thesis/dissertation? by Auroch · · Score: 1

      I personally see no value in this kind of master's degree if there is no need to write a thesis/dissertation.

      So, course-based masters programs are of no value, huh? Tell that to the thousands of course-based masters grads.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    2. Re:No thesis/dissertation? by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Most of us write them every day, otherwise known as production code.

      --


      Got Code?
    3. Re:No thesis/dissertation? by Surt · · Score: 1

      The market will take care of telling them that.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:No thesis/dissertation? by mdf356 · · Score: 2

      I personally see no value in this kind of master's degree if there is no need to write a thesis/dissertation.

      The value for me of a course-based M.S. (dropout from a PhD program) was $6000 per year starting salary. That's a pretty decent bump that I likely kept with me my whole career, as raises tend to be percentage based. So after 11 years it may have been worth at least $66k.

      Oh, and also I learned a bunch of stuff in those courses I hadn't yet learned as an undergrad. To my recollection, none of the specific things has been relevant to my job, but it is sometimes hard to tell.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    5. Re:No thesis/dissertation? by kenh · · Score: 1

      The value for me of a course-based M.S. (dropout from a PhD program) was $6000 per year starting salary. That's a pretty decent bump that I likely kept

      Of course, that's before you deduct the cost of that course-based M.S., right?

      --
      Ken
    6. Re:No thesis/dissertation? by mdf356 · · Score: 1

      True. I earned $14k per year stipend in graduate school, plus $6k per summer grading a summer-school course. I opted for that instead of a more lucrative summer internship.

      So for the 2.5 years of graduate school I earned $20k per year instead of around $56k, so if it was $6k extra per year then I'm at break-even next year. If it was an extra $8k instead (since I am estimating) I was at break even a while ago.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
  8. education needs to be smaller chunks / apprentices by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Education needs to be in smaller chunks with more apprenticeship like teaching.

    First off for some stuff like IT 2-4 years in the class room is to much even more so at CS where there is a BIG skills gap from say a TECH School.

    Also in IT there should be apprenticeship like teaching so people can get the needed hands on skills.

    To days colleges seem to have to much gen edus and to much filler (now that time and cost can be better off being used) learning real job skills doing real work (no internships) apprenticeship where you do real work (no coffee boys like some internships) and you don't sit in class room for 2-4 years with out really getting out there and to work.

    Lot's of jobs don't need 4 years of pure class room when some kind of mixed community college / tech / voc school / apprenticeship / on going learning / online is a better fit at a lower cost.

  9. stop cheating? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    well most work is group based and open book.

    But what does craming based tests really test????

    1. Re:stop cheating? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      It's not the specific techniques I'm questioning, just the verification of identity.

      I agree that in the new, connected world it makes less sense than ever to have the traditional closed-book test in an exam room. In the real world you'll always be able to look stuff up.

      However I always liked the tests, and I still think they force you to become familiar with the material to the extent that you can show, in a short time, that you can apply a lot of the techniques that you've learned. This is valuable, IMHO.

  10. "In the history of humanity" by Kijori · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it really necessary to explain that this is the first time anyone has offered a CS degree online in the history of humanity?

    We're talking about a course about computing offered entirely over the internet. Surely if it hasn't been done recently we can be pretty sure that the Ancient Greeks didn't beat us to it?

    1. Re:"In the history of humanity" by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Is it really necessary to explain that this is the first time anyone has offered a CS degree online in the history of humanity?

      We're talking about a course about computing offered entirely over the internet. Surely if it hasn't been done recently we can be pretty sure that the Ancient Greeks didn't beat us to it?

      We only know of one Antikythera mechanism. The job market for keeping it running was limited at best.

      Besides, the Sophists were the ones with the resume' writing courses -- CS102 as I recall.

    2. Re:"In the history of humanity" by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Waaait. The Romans didn't offer Pompeii Whore Simulation seminars?

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:"In the history of humanity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Open University invented the concept of distance learning for university degrees
        Fun to watch when the other three channels were off air.

  11. Nothing (really) new by giuseppemag · · Score: 1

    Computer Science degrees have been publicly available since the birth of the modern Internet: most papers and tutorials, ranging from basic programming language introductions to lambda calculus and AI, have been freely available for years for whoever is curious about the topics.

    The things that a university really offers are accreditation that you have truly mastered the topics and professionals who put together a reasonable, sequential curriculum and help you absorb it. Did they solve it here? Doesn't seem so...

    Also, European universities are essentially free, at least for their good students: an Italian PhD student has a total net cost of about -20000 euros, that is after your PhD between scholarships and taxes you have earned 20k (personal experience!).

    So this is really of limited interest, and it is so only for the US...

    --
    My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
    1. Re:Nothing (really) new by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      The things that a university really offers are accreditation that you have truly mastered the topics

      Does it though? I am discouraged by the number of CS graduates who cannot explain basic, fundamental questions like the P vs. NP problem. A lot of schools seem to only require that their CS graduates be able to write a few moderately challenging programs, and even then, only in a particular programming language or class of languages.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Nothing (really) new by Nursie · · Score: 1

      PvNP may have been covered at my university, I don't remember. It certainly wasn't given the import you seem to think it deserves, and this is from a university that taught classes in at least 8 languages over the course, with the expectation that you learned to program them outside of the class as in class they were being used to demonstrate principles.

      Maybe a lot of schools do have programmes that lack academic rigour, or maybe you're just focussed weirdly.

    3. Re:Nothing (really) new by mdf356 · · Score: 1

      My colleagues have interviewed new college graduates in CS who don't know big-O notation. That's a pre-requisite for understanding P versus NP. Though to be fair, there's a broad swath of problems one can solve for an employer where the algorithms don't reach that combinatoric complexity, and the data sets aren't large enough to make O(n^2) with low constants worse too often compared to O(n lg n) with high constants.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    4. Re:Nothing (really) new by russotto · · Score: 1

      Well, PvNP is mostly interesting because it's unsolved. If back at the dawn of computing theory some pioneer proved P!=NP, the problem would be a mere footnote (and if they proved P=NP, the field would be very different). But the notion of algorithmic complexity classes is pretty important, and I'd be suspicious of a computer science degree program which didn't include them.

    5. Re:Nothing (really) new by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Does it though? I am discouraged by the number of CS graduates who cannot explain basic, fundamental questions like the P vs. NP problem. A lot of schools seem to only require that their CS graduates be able to write a few moderately challenging programs, and even then, only in a particular programming language or class of languages.

      I think that the problem here is that "computer science" is very loosely defined and not exactly the same thing depending on where and who you ask. It's also a very broad topic, which is probably why it differs so much. The problem of P vs. NP is fundamental in some places, others may focus on other topics. Computer science have simply become too big.

      Physics is a good example where they have already done this. They often differentiate between technical physics, theoretical physics, radiation physics and so on. The same thing will likely happen in the field of computer science as well. Either that or we mysteriously manage to decide what constitute a fundamental understanding of what computer science is, which I don't think will happen.

  12. Re:education needs to be smaller chunks / apprenti by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In reality, we have given colleges simply too much power by indoctrinating everyone about the wonders of education and always equating it as going to college. If you think about it, training people has shifted from the burden of a company to the burden and cost of the individual for, imo, no greater gain. Wages and the like have been stagnant or worse since the 1970s. But it's not all roses for the company either, often they have to train the workers anyway after college.

    So much of school is just theory when most people simply learn by doing. It's like trying to learning to cook by reading a book and then doing a dish or two at the end of every semester. Just not going to work if you want to be a line cook at a good restaurant.

  13. Course material is not an education by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An education is more than that. It's sitting through hours of lectures where students ask questions and topics are discussed at length, not only with the professor but with other students outside of class. It's submitting work and having it critiqued by an expert. It's discussing why your answers were wrong or incomplete. It's discussing why you have answers your professor never thought of but are still correct or more correct than what he was expecting. It's deciding what out-of-major classes are of interest to you or would further your education in your chosen field. It's telling your not-in-major friends about insights you learned from your classes that are applicable to everybody and listening to the same thing from them. Most of these things simply can't be automated and many of them can't be done as well on line. None of them can be done for $100 a degree.

    None of that can be force-fed to you one-way down a wire. Education is interactive.

    Real education can be had over the internet, but it's NOT the same and not as valuable as learning in-person, and it will never be cheap (unless somebody else is paying for it) and it will always take as long or nearly as long as the traditional route. It just takes that long to have that experience and absorb and digest that much information.

    1. Re:Course material is not an education by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Realize that some of us do not need to be force-fed information we are quite capable of performing this feat on our own.

      The only times I have visited a university was to assist CS professors in teaching a class.

      I do realize however that I am a exception to the rule and yes 90% of the general public will need to be force-fed.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:Course material is not an education by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Realize that some of us do not need to be force-fed information we are quite capable of performing this feat on our own.

      The only times I have visited a university was to assist CS professors in teaching a class.

      I do realize however that I am a exception to the rule and yes 90% of the general public will need to be force-fed.

      I find that highly credible.

    3. Re:Course material is not an education by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Ok you got me, yes that is totally impossible.

      --


      Got Code?
    4. Re:Course material is not an education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I disagree. My engineering classes had 60+ people in them. No time to ask questions. No discussions. And in my opinion, the quality of the lectures were poor. Not much better than just learning from the textbook on one's own. And this was from the best eng. program in Canada.

      Don't misunderstand. I'm no proponent of the $100 method under discussion. But I do think that the university system needs a big kick in the pants. I've worked with professors and some are good friends. But in our discussions, the catch phrase keeps coming up: "we're not here to teach, we're here to teach how to learn". This is a big cop-out and provides a means to avoid any responsibility for some of the poor lecturing I've experienced.

      When the students start catching mistakes in the lectures on the blackboard - someone needs a job review.......

    5. Re:Course material is not an education by Neil_Brown · · Score: 1

      Real education can be had over the internet, but it's NOT the same and not as valuable as learning in-person

      I agree that education "over the internet" is not the same as learning in person — but I'd completely disagree that it is not as valuable as learning "in-person." I am, perhaps, entirely biased about this, since I am coming to the end of a programme delivered entirely online, but this might just mean I can also contribute from experience:

      For me, studying my masters online has been far more valuable to me than learning in person. I work, and I travel a lot — fitting in classes at a particular time, at a particular location, would have been a real struggle for me. Instead, the ability to listen to lectures at times convenient to me, and then discuss with students and the tutors online, has been very valuable indeed — far more people have asked questions on this course than they did during my (traditional) undergraduate degree. I know my tutors far, far better coming off this programme than I did at undergraduate level — perhaps just an importantly, they have said that they know their students far better than those whom they teach in their offline / blended learning courses.

      For me, learning is not about having content shoved at me, which was, all too often, what seems to be classed as education. For what I study, I can easily find the materials online (even before using university credentials to access subscription journals and so on), and have read huge amounts more than I did at undergraduate level — in turn, I've spent hours just thinking and writing, and deleting, and writing it again. Whenever I've submitted an assessment, I've asked for detailed feedback from my tutors — why did I get this mark, what would I needed to have done to have got a higher mark, why a certain comment was made and so on. I haven't always agreed with the rationale but, having built up the relationship, I was able to argue why their position was wrong, and continue the discussion — this never happened in my traditional course but, when each party can communicate at a convenient time, it becomes a lot easier, to my mind.

      The challenge, though, is getting everyone, or even "enough" people, involved — I've no problem sharing my views, and posting thoughts on our blogs, and responding to others, but I'm still in the minority. Still more discussion than at undergraduate, but still the minority, which is a shame. Perhaps it is frightening — perhaps people are studying remotely to cram in to a packed life, and do not make the time to contribute — whatever the reason, my view is that they are *really* missing out, just like those who sit at the back of lecture theatres, and sit silently in tutorials. But the software is there — the possibilities are there — students just need to make that leap.

      It's been an amazing experience, and has not been a solitary exercise, even if I would have liked more discussion and debate — just because I'm sitting in a cafe, rather than sitting in a classroom, has not degraded the learning experience at all and, much the opposite, has meant I've been able to interact with a far more diverse range of students than could have attended a fixed-location, offline program.

    6. Re:Course material is not an education by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      How is that substantially different to online collaboration, like we're doing right now? Some people just want to learn, they aren't interested in academic politics or filler classes. If they can now get a respectable certification, its a giant leap.

  14. flawed idea by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    While the students may become knowledgeable in a subject I doubt many employers would give Joey with his Masters degree from Udacity a job over someone with a Masters degree or even a Bachelors degree from an established mainstream university or college. If the applicant had experience as well, possibly, but not a new grad.

    1. Re:flawed idea by green1 · · Score: 2

      And here you highlight the biggest problem with the system. There is absolutely no reason why an education needs to break the bank, or why we can't develop an online method of doing it.
      But a formal education isn't really about teaching you things, its about convincing an employer to hire you. You can know more about a subject than anyone else on the planet, but unless the employer sees paperwork to back it up, you won't even get an interview.
      How do they plan to convince employers that this isn't just another of those many mail order degree scams?

    2. Re:flawed idea by mdf356 · · Score: 1

      Are you part of the interviewing process where you work? I am, and while I can't say what HR or our recruiter might do, I often don't even look at the part of the resume that lists where a candidate was educated, except for curiosity. I still need a candidate to prove to me that s/he can program and can think, and their educational source is only tangentially related in my experience.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
  15. Wish I had this by mattr · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't trade this for a college education but this would have been pure platinum if it had been around when I was in grade school.

  16. $100... by fysdt · · Score: 3, Funny

    One does not simply get a Master's degree for $100.

  17. I already offer an online Masters for $50 by Surt · · Score: 1

    And the good news is, mine is equally as accredited as the one from Udacity.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:I already offer an online Masters for $50 by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      Don't waste your money on online degrees. I'll sell you a legitamate, non-online* degree for the bargain basement price of $39.99. That's less that $40! You won't find a better deal anywhere.

      You wanna be a minister too? I'll throw in a Ph. P (preacher of philosophy) for only $9.99 more. What a deal!!!

      * allow 6-8 weeks for your degree to arrive in the mail.

  18. Snore by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Computer Science? Snooze. I already do that. I want an online degree program in physics, or geology, or something. I want to study the interesting stuff that I didn't do in school because I sold out and went the path that would make me shitloads of money instead of shitloads on happiness and intellectual fulfillment.

    1. Re:Snore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should check out the Open University. And that's a real univesity too - one of the top 50 in the UK.

      (I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. Maybe it looks too much like socialism. But it's the good sort I promise you:-)

    2. Re:Snore by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks

  19. And $100.00 wasted.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    If it's not accredited. You might as well buy a master degree from on of the other fake uni's online. They sell Masters degrees for less than $100.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:And $100.00 wasted.... by kat_skan · · Score: 1

      Well that largely depends on how good the classes are and why you want the degree, doesn't it? If you finish the degree and know the subject material as well as someone who spent thousands on theirs, is that enough value for your $100?

    2. Re:And $100.00 wasted.... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I don't know what are the rules are for accreditation, but it's what code monkeys don't have. And the day will come when the pay master is looking for someone who can really grow with the company; that's when taking all those other lower division classes pays off.

    3. Re:And $100.00 wasted.... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking this logic works pretty fair, in India.

      But long term success requires more than an absoute minimum. Short term success cannot handle the unexpected. For example, I use to think that Yale produced quality graduates; I'm now seeing that Harvard is producing successful graduates, and that is quality I prefer to learn from.

    4. Re:And $100.00 wasted.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If you want an advanced education there is plenty of free resources on the internet and in libraries to get a PHD level of education. People want a "degree" to wave it around. If you are interested in education, a degree is not important to you, You will seek out the education and consume it without the sillyness of a piece of paper.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  20. It reminds me by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of an old advertising slogan...."I'll make anyone a master of science for just $99.95."

  21. Re:education needs to be smaller chunks / apprenti by morcego · · Score: 1

    Education needs to be in smaller chunks with more apprenticeship like teaching.

    No. Education needs to no longer be treated like a single thing. Each topic is different, and should be treated so.

    The way to teach/learn CS, for example, is (or should be) different than law, or physics.

    One of the problems with education right now (among many others) is the search for "on size fits all" solutions.

    --
    morcego
  22. One Book can cost over $100. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Make the text books free and that would help everybody. Most topics stay the same with only slight changes over time; especially the lower level courses.

    1. Re:One Book can cost over $100. by kenh · · Score: 1

      Do you know how silly that sounds?

      Students pay $500-2,000 credit hour (or more) for Graduate School, and spend less than $1,000/semester on books.

      The issue isn't the cost of the textbooks - it's the cost of the teacher in front of the classroom, the brand-new dorms & athletic facilities, etc.

      --
      Ken
    2. Re:One Book can cost over $100. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Not silly! If you want the diploma you play the game, if you want the knowledge you already have other options; quality free textbooks would help MORE people than cheaper schools would, most people don't go to school.

      Depends upon the state and the school. I can cite multiple schools in my area that do not waste money and ones that not only waste student money but waste CITY money on stadiums etc. College sports actually impact college funding in the state legislature; if that doesn't reflect society's idiotic priorities I don't know what will wake you up to the real problem. It is easy to blame others than yourself or your society. I've heard about private schools, which often waste so much MORE money marketing themselves.

      Graduate school costs are partially the typical free market pricing where they can charge a premium. The other part is the increased workload on the instructor and SMALL class size. (FYI: student fee x number of students = income per class - instructor expense - small overhead - BS fees - "premium service" fee.)

      Students which treat a course as a correspondence school are in the wrong place. Graduate students that do not need to engage in a discussion with the professor or others in the course are not likely in a good program. Basic communications 101 also states that most communication is non-verbal...

  23. their goal: Free ($0) Education, !Free Cert($100) by Fubari · · Score: 1

    From TFA (p.2):

    All Udacity courses are free and will remain free, it is the certification, or level of certification which will eventually cost money.

    (this excerpt was from 2nd page, about half way down in the question: The recent Forbes Magazine’s article title on Udacity read “$100 for a masters degree” is that a reasonable estimate ? )

    This is cool because the material will be available even to very cash poor people, and I will likely look into classes here I'd never think about paying for at a conventional school.

    jellomizer wrote:

    The only way you can get $100 for a degree in education is to mass produce it. Pre-Recorded Lectures, Online articles, Mutable choice tests, all done online. Now granted some colleges nearly teach like that, a professor with a well practiced rehearsed lectures, then you do you multiple choice tests, then you got your class credit...

    btw, JM: I agree with your points about delivery & cost cutting. When the Khan Academy has come up past discussions, people often talk about the idea of "flipping classes" so lectures are on the students time and class sessions are collaborative help sessions roughly like you describe (e.g. hybrid).
    All very cool, I'm excited by the potential this offers.

    jellomizer wrote:

    While you may learn, and can get accreditation. It creates a culture of mediocre education. This takes out some of the human elements that are both good and bad. If you are able being able to be noticed by a professor and working with them on his research, having your work properly critiqued. When I went to college for Computer Science, I came in already knowing how to program, and I was working programming, but I wanted to learn more then just the core requirements, I wanted to learn the nuances. While some students in my class who passed they got the basics, I was able to use education and the work directly with my professors to hone my skills and make me better. I know I used up more then $100 expense on my education.

    However I think a hybrid approach would be a good match. There are some classes, that I didn't like spending thousands of dollars on, just because I had to take them, I would much rather pay a lower rate, and take the mediocre online class to get the credit, and save some money. But save the classes I am actually interested in with live people and professors.

  24. 2 Areas of Concern by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Diploma Mills are way more expensive. I hope an acceptable accreditation,(like I won't get laughed at to loudly when I put it on my job application), will come with the $100 and completing the curriculum.

    Statistics is my personal Achilles Heal. The Stat class(s) should cover the stats required for the A.I. classes. The ability to drill down an avenue of questions would be a god send. With 160K+ students, there's no way a professor can answer all those questions. But if one could drill down to a sub lecture on a particular subject for a more in depth understanding or refresh of knowledge forgotten; beautiful.

  25. School is learning by doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, but if you're not learning by doing in school, you're really not getting your money's worth (either because you're shortchanging yourself, or are being shortchanged by someone else).

    I'm a professor at a major university. I *do* think some stuff could be changed about the traditional higher educational system.

    However, what I've seen is students who come in and expect to "learn by osmosis" sitting in their chairs. They bitch if you actually make them think or do something on their own. They don't show an interest in participating in research, supervised internships (yes, through the university), or field training.

    Then they go out into the world and act as if that's what a university degree is supposed to be. I.e., they expect something passive, demand something passive, and then say "hey, you can passively learn this online through other means!" No shit.

    My point is that something like this might be the best thing for higher ed, because it would attract all the people thinking education is a passive activity--something they consume rather than produce themselves. Then that would leave the motivated students to actually come to university and participate.

    A university education isn't about being lectured at, it's about having you asking questions and being enabled in answering them. The reason to go get a university degree is to go hang out with other students (undergrad or grad) and professors, and do things with them. It's not to sit in a lecture hall.

    1. Re:School is learning by doing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      My point is that something like this might be the best thing for higher ed, because it would attract all the people thinking education is a passive activity--something they consume rather than produce themselves. Then that would leave the motivated students to actually come to university and participate.

      An alternative interpretation is that it would leave the rich students to come to university because of the increased prestige only. And they're unlikely to be the most motivated students.

      A university education isn't about being lectured at, it's about having you asking questions and being enabled in answering them. The reason to go get a university degree is to go hang out with other students (undergrad or grad) and professors, and do things with them. It's not to sit in a lecture hall.

      It wasn't in the roman empire, or in the middle ages, no, where the commitment a student made to the university was akin to becoming a monk for 10+ years. But since it became mass education it has been about just that.

  26. No! by l00sr · · Score: 2

    The idea of a $100 master's degree is subversive, especially considering that a master's is the basic qualification to hold a professorship at a modern university

    This is incorrect. A master's degree will, at best, qualify you to lecture basic classes at your local community college. Teaching at a university requires a PhD, almost without exception.

  27. where is the source code for Google-Car or Darpa by cellurl · · Score: 1

    I may be wrong (please please correct me), but I have never seen the source-code to any of the google-car. I can't find it on any DARPA-grand-challenge site either (taxpayer google-car beta).

    Help eliminate stupid traffic tickets

  28. Re:education needs to be smaller chunks / apprenti by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    then trun it into a badges system.

  29. Tee hee... by f3rret · · Score: 1

    You silly Americans and your "we have to pay for university education".

    Then again I guess that free education is socialist and since we all know that socialism is the terrible evil I guess you'll just have to pay.

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    1. Re:Tee hee... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you live, but you pay for your university education as well - only instead of only the people that attend university getting the bill, you assess everyone for the tuition.

      Or do your university staff work for free, the buildings never need repairs, and the students all feed and house themselves?

      --
      Ken
  30. So where are these courses ... by giorgist · · Score: 1

    Where does one go to study Java online with feedback from an instructor.

    One course I have found so far is the following:

    http://www.oreillyschool.com/certificates/java-programming.php

    Any others ?

  31. Didn't we just talk about this? by crossmr · · Score: 1

    June 7 http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/06/07/0118228/online-courses-and-the-100-graduate-degree
    It's an impractical now as it was 9 days. Stellar editing timothy.

  32. Re:old news by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    my country has FREE education on all levels for all citizens, you can be a doctor, engineer, etc for 0 $ ... yay for socialism

    Well, good for you I guess. Have fun.

  33. Signalling by Jiro · · Score: 1

    Degrees are used for signalling. In other words, employers don't want people with degrees because the employee gained useful job skills from the degree. They want people with degrees because only people who are already smarter (or already have a better work ethic) are willing to pay for the degree and go through the effort to receive one.

    Having a degree which only costs $100 and which doesn't require that someone spend years of their life to get will eliminate this signalling effect, so the $100 degree will be useless in the job market.

    1. Re:Signalling by vlm · · Score: 1

      I realize this is a late post, but don't forget than homes, new cars, and now degrees mean a life od debt servitude... employers love that for "motivational purposes".

      Worst case scenario for an employer is hiring a guy who could retire tomorrow if he wanted.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  34. "This here"???? by littlewink · · Score: 1

    Needs a bit of english grammar!

    "This here dog has fleas."

    "That there bean patch is done loaded with pests."

    If "this here" be the future of education then we all be down the shit river with no paddle.No wut I mean?

  35. Re:education needs to be smaller chunks / apprenti by benhattman · · Score: 1

    Those jobs still exists. Go to your local McDonalds, and they will hire you as is and give you all the training necessary. What changed wasn't companies willingness to spend a week or month training new hires. The difference is that jobs you can be trained in so quickly have diminished. At my employer, when you make a move within divisions it can sometimes take months to get up to just 80% efficiency, just due to the specialized knowledge in different domains. If you came in not knowing anything about software development, and required 2 years basic education plus 3 months domain expertise...well what kind of employer would pay for that? Especially when you are hired at will and could take all that education someplace else at the drop of a hat.

  36. yeah-- no. by eyenot · · Score: 1

    If the institution isn't accredited and the degree doesn't carry any weight, why *even* waste "only" $100 ?

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee