The $100 Masters Degree From Udacity 191
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."
Future of Education (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 [youtube.com]. 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.
Mass Produced education. (Score:4, 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.
Re:Good and bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really really unfortunate that you used MBA as an example.
Key Word "Hope" (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.
Re:Future of Education (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.
Re:Future of Education (Score:0, Insightful)
Bertrand Russel, ...
He could never get a real job. Philosophers, pffft.
Tell me about morality when I get my student loans paid off. Or when I don't have to compete with an impoverished Third World worker who will do the same job for a fraction of what I make.
And until $100 MS degrees are accepted by employers as legitimate, the only thing you can do is sell your future to the student loan lender so that you can get employed.
Anyway, what is "Morality"? Whose "morality"? Mention "morality" in a debate about war, abortion, environment, religion, ....
Have fun with that.
Re:Mass Produced education. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Future of Education (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.
Re:education needs to be smaller chunks / apprenti (Score:5, 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.
Re:Good and bad (Score:4, 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.
Course material is not an education (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.
Re:Mass Produced education. (Score:4, 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.
Snore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key Word "Hope" (Score:5, 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.
Re:Future of Education (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mass Produced education. (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.