Creating a virtual marketplace for tech/business talent, much in the way the Bloomberg BAT [1] has created a virtual marketplace to connect individuals and firms in the finance world.
Create the marketplace and you're guaranteed both a share of the profits from market-related events (conferences, tuition fees) and an increased brand awareness. This will only work if you have a good reputation that will attract both sides of the market: the students (workers) and the firms (employers). MIT has a great reputation, therefore it can put out basically whatever content it wants, and it will profit.
Some more thoughts:
1. A $7,500/year corporate membership gets you:
"-Free postings of company events on the MITX website Events Calendar
-Free access to complete contact information of all members
-Free company listing in MITX's comprehensive searchable online membership directory..."
2. How much does it cost to record a class, create a couple of self-grading exercises, reuse old powerpoints and PDFS, and then throw the whole bundle up online, where it can be used and reused by millions of people? The cost/user is ridiculously small from MIT's standpoint. Creating in-depth, comprehensive OCW would raise costs substantially. Yes, the students would benefit, but why should MIT have vested interests in students who aren't directly enrolled in the college (besides the whole "education for the good of humanity" argument). MITx students probably won't provide any returns in the form of fame/alumni donations.
3. I don't think this will lower the "prestige once enjoyed by higher education". Going to Harvard summer camp while in high school really only signals the ability to pay for such a privilege. The institution doesn't suffer any loss of reputation and earns cash by licensing out its reputation. I believe it will be the same for MITx.
>'MITx students probably won't provide any returns in the form of fame/alumni donations.'
That's an interesting thought.
If MITx were to ask me, I would be inclined to donate. As it is, edX does little/nothing in the way of building a sense of belonging among students - just an occasional email promoting upcoming courses.
I expect MITx students could be a resource, however small, but they're currently completely untapped. Every course I've taken has spawned post-course social groups and lists.
This is something the course operators could easily facilitate and use to some advantage.
> 2. How much does it cost to record a class, create a couple of self-grading exercises, reuse old powerpoints and PDFS, and then throw the whole bundle up online
From the article, "We have spent about $40 million over 10 years."
(I removed the part where I got confused by MITx and MITx.org, thanks keithwinstein for clearing that up!)
The $40M quote is actually related to OCW, not MOOCs directly. You could probably argue that MOOCs are, in part, a reaction to the limited impact of OCW.
(Jumpstarting discussions about broadening education, yes, but the actual impact of which was mostly releasing a bunch of course notes--no. Probably not surprising in retrospect. Was it really realistic to expect that teachers in Africa would take all this and create courses for their students?)
I suspect we're well on our way to some sort of crash of this first wave of MOOCs as well. Whether something substantial comes out of it other than a gradual petering out caused by the lack of meaningful returns and results remains to be seen.
Both of you seem to have gotten confused by mitx.org, the "Massachusetts Innovation & Technology Exchange."
That site is not related to MITx, the MIT MOOC offering. MITx was essentially renamed edX (after MIT partnered with Harvard) and is here: https://www.edx.org/
Creating a virtual marketplace for tech/business talent, much in the way the Bloomberg BAT [1] has created a virtual marketplace to connect individuals and firms in the finance world.
Create the marketplace and you're guaranteed both a share of the profits from market-related events (conferences, tuition fees) and an increased brand awareness. This will only work if you have a good reputation that will attract both sides of the market: the students (workers) and the firms (employers). MIT has a great reputation, therefore it can put out basically whatever content it wants, and it will profit.
Some more thoughts:
1. A $7,500/year corporate membership gets you: "-Free postings of company events on the MITX website Events Calendar -Free access to complete contact information of all members -Free company listing in MITX's comprehensive searchable online membership directory..."
2. How much does it cost to record a class, create a couple of self-grading exercises, reuse old powerpoints and PDFS, and then throw the whole bundle up online, where it can be used and reused by millions of people? The cost/user is ridiculously small from MIT's standpoint. Creating in-depth, comprehensive OCW would raise costs substantially. Yes, the students would benefit, but why should MIT have vested interests in students who aren't directly enrolled in the college (besides the whole "education for the good of humanity" argument). MITx students probably won't provide any returns in the form of fame/alumni donations.
3. I don't think this will lower the "prestige once enjoyed by higher education". Going to Harvard summer camp while in high school really only signals the ability to pay for such a privilege. The institution doesn't suffer any loss of reputation and earns cash by licensing out its reputation. I believe it will be the same for MITx.
[1] http://about.bloomberginstitute.com/