The problem, of course, is that those students represent the precise group MOOCs are meant to serve. “MOOCs were supposed to be the device that would bring higher education to the masses,” Jonathan Rees noted. “However, the masses at San Jose State don’t appear to be ready for the commodified, impersonal higher education that MOOCs offer.” Thrun’s cavalier disregard for the SJSU students reveals his true vision of the target audience for MOOCs: students from the posh suburbs, with 10 tablets apiece and no challenges whatsoever—that is, the exact people who already have access to expensive higher education.
It is more than galling that Thrun blames students for the failure of a medium that was invented to serve them, instead of blaming the medium that, in the storied history of the “correspondence” course (“TV/VCR repair”!), has never worked. For him, MOOCs don’t fail to educate the less privileged because the massive online model is itself a poor tool. No, apparently students fail MOOCs because those students have the gall to be poor, so let’s give up on them and move on to the corporate world, where we don’t have to be accountable to the hoi polloi anymore, or even have to look at them, because gross.
Lisa Levinson on 17 Aug 14Op ed piece by David L. Kirp, a Berkley professor. The business models that are proliferating in educational thinking and assessment does not work, and the greatest determiner of success are the interpersonal relationships of students and teachers, students and students, and teachers and teachers. Adding more and new technology has not been successful because of this. Rewarding "good" schools with merit pay while closing and punishing those in areas of poverty because they are "failing" schools without instituting known programs that engender success is a crime in his view.
