"Across 12 courses, participants who paid for “ID-verified” certificates (with costs ranging from $50 to $250) earned certifications at a higher rate than other participants: 59 percent, on average, compared to 5 percent. Students opting for the ID-verified track appear to have stronger intentions to complete courses, and the monetary stake may add an extra form of motivation."
Would be interesting to know more about these people.
I'm one of them! But in the end I got behind in the course (it was on the Magna Carta, very interesting), and it closed before I could finish the material/assignments, so I unfortunately wasted 40 dollars (except I like to think of it as a donation to Coursera).
"We review preliminary demographic and outcome data for participants who pay to “ID-verify” their certificates. They are slightly older, more educated, more domestic, and less often female than non-verifying participants in the same course."
Moreover since they are "more educated" and the paper also mentions that students are in general graduates in a "disproportionate manner", I assume that these people are very likely to be graduates.
I'm curious how much the effect is causal vs correlational. That is are students that sign up for certificates more likely to finish (because maybe they feel like they've already paid and don't want to waste it) or are students that are more likely to finish more likely to sign up for certificates in the first place? I would guess both effects are present but I'd like to know how it breaks down.
I took the Intro to AI and later AI for Robotics through Udacity but I was only able to get through one other course.
Now I am in my first semester of Georgia Tech's OMCS and I think it has been very challenging and enlightening. One improvement would be to get other colleges to make a macro-OMCS. Where you could take 10 classes across a wider selection. Maybe that will come with time. I also think there would be a great need for a $7k OBCS, that might be the next step in offering education to a wide group of people.
I'm not sure that I see the benefit of a decentralized degree. Udacity & Coursera are already pursuing a path to aggregate content from many schools, and the OMS CS course catalog will not have traditional limits on availability -- once courses are in the catalog they can continue offering them every semester. As a fellow OMS student, the limiting factor has always been graders/TAs up to this point.
I concur about the need for an OBS CS (or ME, EE, CPE,...) at $7k. Cal State Monterey has a fully online BS program...that costs more than the resident program. I don't understand how it costs $300-500 per credit hour for the undergrad programs, except to avoid devaluing the resident offerings.
"I don't understand how it costs $300-500 per credit hour for the undergrad programs, except to avoid devaluing the resident offerings."
In MOOCs thousands of people are enrolled at the same time, and support is provided by the community of students. It's incredible how this phrasing sounds positive - even to me - while it basically means that support by a qualified instructor cannot be guaranteed and is unlikely to be provided.
In (good) accredited online programs - BSc or MSc - there are 10 to 20 students enrolled per course and you have direct access to the instructor who will adapt his lectures based on the audience feedbacks and specifics. This costs money and therefore has to come at a price.
If the program doesn't offer the above, or if you are a passive student who don't ask questions frequently and interact with others, then I'm with you, "why paying this price ?".
By the way, I am not saying that MOOCs are useless. Personally I see it under this perspective : the Educational System is so broken that in many cases streaming a video to thousands of people without providing them dedicated support is equivalent to the experience they get in physical classrooms.
> In MOOCs thousands of people are enrolled at the same time, and support is provided by the community of students.
The OMS CS at Georgia Tech (an accredited program) has about 2,500 students, with 200-500 per class. With a few rare exceptions, the instructor of record is an active participant, as well as the TAs. This model is viable for online classes.
My real point was that I don't understand how online versions of the exact same classes at the same schools cost double or more of what they charge for the resident program. Keeping the example of CSUMB, they charge a flat $500/credit online [0] ($12,000 annually for 12 unit semesters), but only $5,472 annually [1] for 12 or more units per semester. Even the non-resident tuition for the on-campus program ($372/unit) is less than the online price. It costs less to go to CSUMB for four years than to go to a JC for 60 units and CSUMB online to finish a BA/BS degree.
Yea I got you. For the OMS CS at Georgia Tech, I would never enroll in such conditions to be honest, not for a Graduate program and especially not if I'll be paying thousands of dollars, whether it is on-campus or online.
I don't doubt this model is viable, I'm not even saying it's bad quality. Certainly you'll find many people who'll tell you that they learned a lot and that they've blosomed. However I doubt this is an optimal solution, there is clearly room to improve quality a lot by decreasing the class sizes - thus increasing the individual support.
"The instructor is an active participant" means a lot. He becomes a "participant" instead of being an instructor. The reason is simple, there's no way to accomodate 200 people. Do you think he'll have the time to have something as small as a 10 minutes discussion with every student every week ?
When I was at college, I was regularly talking with my instructors for 30 minutes, sometimes hours in their office. To me it's crucial at every stage of education and not enough emphasized in the current system. But I think it is critical to have this direct, easy and unrestricted access to the instructor at graduate school.
At some college, I've seen a graduate school instructor complaning about the fact that he had to accept 23 students for a term instead of 15-18 because the demand was too high.
Concerning your main point, here are my thoughts :
- If they set the online programs at a lower price, then it will "mean" that it is lower quality than the on-campus program.
- If they set it at the same price, potential on-campus students will choose to enroll online to avoid having to attend lectures, thus taking the best of both worlds.
- Therefore the best option for them is to price online programs higher so people who are able to be on-campus will go on-campus and the rest will go online. I wouldn't be surprised if they also take into account the cost of housing to avoid making the online option too attractive.
Tuitions are not the only source of revenue for colleges, so they have to be careful and make sure students keep coming on-campus.
> He becomes a "participant" instead of being an instructor.
I just meant that they are actively involved; they are certainly still teachers.
Regarding the pricing of online undergrad programs, I think schools have converged on a particular price level because it is adequate. The supply side of education is rather insular thanks to accreditation requirements (not a bad thing), but it means that there also isn't much incentive for competition on the price -- especially when the offering competes with your own core product.
The data so far indicates that the market for the OMS is disproportionately older and more fully employed than traditional resident MS students. Similarly, much of the core offering of traditional undergrad programs is focused on the 18-24 demographic, so I wouldn't be surprised to find that the online offerings appeal more to older and more fully employed undergrad students who can afford the higher tuition(perhaps with tuition assistance) in exchange for the increased schedule flexibility.
> I just meant that they are actively involved; they are certainly still teachers.
Sure I got you, I was pointing that in such conditions it's unlikely that they can play they teaching role fully. They become more like participants in forums who will sometimes get involved in a thread, sometimes not.
> The data so far indicates...
Very interesting, but I think it's a consequence of the pricing and not the cause. People go online when they can't go on-campus for one reason or an other (job, family, live in another country, etc...). It is the purpose of the pricing.
I think the TAs/graders will start to scale. There are some amazing TAs in this program. From my experience, I think some of the best are also current students in the program. I think the network effect of having so many students will have a big impact. I think you will start seeing companies encouraging employees to be TAs just for the ability to screen for potential employees.
I agree about the TAs -- actually that was part of my point. Once the pool of TAs begins to scale they will have an easier time continuing to provide the courses with lower time investment from the professor of record than resident classes (since lectures do not have to be repeatedly provided).
One of the questions still open in my mind is whether networking through the OMS will be as valuable as resident programs. Anecdotally, I haven't been able to generate any useful leads so far, but that may be as much on me as the program. (I'm interested in other opportunities, but I have a well-paid, stable job that is far away from any tech hubs...so I'm not desperate, and it's challenging to find opportunities that fit for both parties.)
Would be interesting to know more about these people.