MOOCs, the massive open, online courses that were supposed to revolutionize education, have not.
Turns out, people tend to value things proportionally to their investment. And whether it’s money or effort, MOOCs were designed to require none of the first and most require very little of the latter. So, predictably, MOOCs routinely draw large initial interest because they are free but miniscule completion rates and questionable outcomes because, well, they are free.
Moreover, even if you complete a MOOC, it’s not clear what you’ve really done, what it really matters and whether anyone cares. Maybe that’s not a problem. It’s foolish to pick on free learning options. Learning has its own value. And people will get what they want from MOOCs.
But in an environment where education is a commodity and profiteers set stock prices based on how much they can convince how many students to pay, entrepreneurs and some schools have rushed in to solve the MOOC non-problem by selling a cheap “credential” or a “certificate” that means exactly nothing. And what may be worse, many schools and businesses are using MOOCs as advertising for more expensive programs, hoping to lure you in with the free stuff to sell you their expensive platinum plans.
And before you think that’s an overly harsh assessment of today’s MOOCs, consider what the leaders of MOOCs have themselves said recently.
Take the certificate first. Most, maybe even all, MOOC providers sell a certificate or something attesting to the fact that a learner completed the MOOC. But what does that mean? No one knows and probably not too much.
At a recent panel discussion (video here), for example, Anne Trumbore, the Senior Director, Wharton Online at The Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania was pretty direct that people who take their online classes, “ … want signals that they’ve learned business knowledge they can apply to work – and the certificates seem to fill that void for them which is interesting because we’re not really backing them as a currency we have no gold standard for.”
Whaton is selling them, but “not really backing them.” That is indeed, as Trumbore says, “interesting.” If you really want to pay for something stamped with the Wharton brand that doesn’t mean much, get the $33 t-shirt. It’s less expensive and also conveniently available online. At least then you’ll know exactly what you bought.
Even selling those unbacked certificates isn’t enough, apparently. There’s more money in the bigger ticket items. In the same panel, Trumbore says they, “try to convert MOOC and low-price certificate learners to higher priced professional certificate programs.” She says that effort does not work that well but also adds, “We are pretty good at converting people from free to paid.”
It’s unclear what was wrong with free but, kudos.
That’s not to pick on Wharton. The leaders of these free or low-cost classes and programs routinely discuss tactics to boost “conversions” from their free options into paying ones. It’s just that few of them have the courage to say so out loud. They prefer to think they’re doing the noble work of opening access to quality learning.
Some have even made up new branding terms to sell more of their certificate programs – offering a “micro-masters” to those who get several paid certificates in a specific sequence, for example. And while that may boost a bottom line, it’s not clear what it is or what it means.
At the same panel where Trumbore presented, David Lawrence-Lupton of the University of Michigan said one student who earned a micro-masters asked if his certification could say something instead of micro-masters because, where he was from, the term didn’t mean anything. Even worse, quoting Trumbore again, “When you dive down into micro-masters, many of the schools don’t promise credit from their institutions.”
Again, that’s not a Wharton problem or a Michigan problem, it’s bigger than them. MOOCs are now about selling, not learning.
Maybe you can understand, even excuse the schools. Maybe they do it because they’re desperate for revenue – as leaders of online programs have pretty clearly said. Maybe you can excuse that even if, like Wharton, you have a $1.3 billion endowment. Not University of Pennsylvania, Wharton has a $1.3 billion endowment.
But it’s less understandable if you sell “free” education for profit.
Take Jeff Maggioncalda, for example, the CEO of Coursera. If you don’t know Coursera, Forbes described it as the, “most successful MOOC provider, with 150 international university partners, 36 million registered learners, $210 million in investment capital, an $800 million valuation …” When discussing some of the courses his company provides for free to some students and at some institutions, Maggioncalda described them as “ … a loss leader” – the business term for pulling potential customers in the door with free stuff in order to sell them other things.
That's not Coursera's fault. That's just the new normal in higher education.
It’s sad that MOOCs have drifted into the land of cheap sales tactics, the roadside billboard that gets passersby to stop for free ice cream. Those who started MOOCs or invested in them early probably didn’t see this as their future. They probably did want to make the best in teaching and learning available to anyone, anywhere for free. But that’s not what they are anymore, if they ever were. MOOCs are now the free ice cream, the bait in the trap and, as such, it’s normal to wonder what they’re really worth even if they’re free.
