I don’t think I have a problem with MOOCs (I’ve participated in several at varying levels) or Coursera (I’ve had less-than-amazing experiences before but I’ve signed up for the Improvisation course which I am looking forward to).

I do have a problem with MOOC hype, and I think a lot of what I have written here reflects that.

I don’t want to pick through those points again – clearly we see a lot of these points differently and I don’t think another round of comments is going to change that. But one thing that you said – “Apples and oranges” – resonates with what I think I was trying to do with this post.

I love public education – and to me that means education in public. This means that I love public lectures, academic blogging, co-journalism, community outreach events and, yes, short “taster” courses offered to the public. And to me the MOOC is a form of the latter – so I have every sympathy with the idea.

What has put me off is the ridiculous end of the hype machine, the picture of Coursera et al as an all-crushing behemoth that will “disrupt” and destroy all traditional higher education. Where as I think free online taster courses can and will endure (though they are expensive, and institutions will need to think carefully about whether they are sustainable in their current form), my suspicion is that the apocalyptic hype will look as embarrassing as all those news agencies embedding reporters in Second Life now does.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am sorry if I came off as rude or shrill. But I am no shill but simply a happy beneficiary of Coursera’s excellent free courses. Have you taken any? I highly recommend giving it a try.

I was really just hoping to correct some of the confusions in your original post. Let me redouble my efforts. But first a question: What do you have against Coursera and MOOCs? I have not read the rest of your blog but you seem to have developed an obsessive hatred for them.

Now to the points in your response:

(1) You entire post was about their “profit” and while neither of us know their plans for a business model this is completely normal for startups. For example Google did not have a business model when it was 18 months old or three years old. Lastly if you think there has only be uncritical praise of Coursera you are simply wrong. Take a look at this (not that I endorse much of it):

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/High-Costs-of-Free-Online-Education.pdf&PubID=5082

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/whats-the-matter-with-moocs/33289

http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/a-massively-bad-idea/37193

(2) Enrollment simply is something different for an online FREE class with OPEN admissions and NO COMMITMENTS than it is for traditional education. Hey you hate MOOCs. Why don’t you go sign up for all the classes you can and never finish. Get you friends to so this to and you maybe can get completion rates down to 4%. Yayyy! Can you see how much harder that would be in traditional settings? Apples and oranges.

(3) The HE in the HEFCE report is some kind of strange invention. The normal definition is this:

Higher, post-secondary, tertiary, or third level education is the stage of learning that occurs at universities, academies, colleges, seminaries, and institutes of technology. Higher education also includes certain college-level institutions, such as vocational schools, trade schools, and career colleges, that award academic degrees or professional certifications.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education

It does not mean IP, consultancy, contract research, or “facilities and equipment related services” as the HEFCE seems to imagine. Did this not seem strange to you too?

(4) If HE is not supposed to make a profit why are you making this ridiculous “profit” comparison? Don;t blame me for your silly ideas. There are both for-profit and non-profit higher education institutions just like for-profit and non-profit MOOCs (e.g. EdX). Not sure what you have against Kleiner but most of their investments lose money that just how venture capital works. If fact they have been struggling lately. In the past the many, many losers have been made up for by the occasional Netscape, Sun or Amazon. Like most startups Coursera will likely fail to be a investment success. However MOOCs are here to stay.

(5) Income is not the same as investment. Perhaps this explains your confusion. An investment is something that generates income not the income itself. For example Kleiner’s investment in Coursera (they bought stock in the company) is intended to generate income in the future. Funding means spending.

(6) Yes Coursera does not directly employ the professors and their staffs of mostly graduate students that actually teach the classes with the exception of Ng and Koeller who are both founders of Coursera and the instructors of courses on Coursera (Ng teaches Machine Learning and Koeller teaches Probabilistic Graphical Models). They are also top academics in their fields. And other top professors from top universities teach the courses on Coursera not the staff who runs the website.

I hope this helps but I kind of doubt it. Again what is really your problem with MOOCs? They are likely here to stay but also likely to be just one part of a much larger education ecosystem. Don’t worry traditional education is not going anywhere.

Thanks Niels, what a delightful comment. Pitch perfect parody of a corporate shill.

To deal with the points raised in order.

(1) Coursera didn’t make a “profit”. Every penny of the small amount of non-venture capital income it made last year will go towards repaying the many investors who are expecting a return. I agree it is rare for a start-up to make a profit (especially one with no business model) but such has been the uncritical praise offered to Coursera that I thought it was worth a mention.

(2) This is one of the central issues I think – I would agree that “enrolment” means a different thing to a MOOC provider. Perhaps we could decide on a different name for the act of signing up for a course that they could use to avoid confusion? But a free product that 90-95% of people who say they want it, don’t, is – however we spin it – not heartening for the New Glorious Future of Education.

(3) Knowledge Transfer/Third Stream is an example of an additional revenue stream that universities in the UK are able to access. You’ll find the HEFCE report covers HE activity – that’s what the “HE” in HEFCE stands for.

(4) It is unclear because UKHE is not supposed to make a profit! But the Coursera “profit” is equally unclear. If I’m honest I don’t think either of them are real “profits” but the UKHE surplus belongs to the institutions rather than Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

(5) The figure quoted above (£27.8bn) represents the entire income of UKHE, core and capital. This is why I used the word “investment” rather than funding.

(6) Coursera don’t employ any academic staff. To be honest I was pushing it by including Ng and Koeller as neither of them have academic roles. “Course professors” are employed by and funded by the boring old traditional education sector.

I would love you to go on, as these are great examples of some of the arguments that a Coursera shill (should such a thing exist) would use and it has been interesting responding to them.

Thanks again.

(1) Coursera is an 18 month old startup. It often takes many years for a new business to show a profit. For example it was 5 years before Google had its first profit. Most people were surprised Coursera showed a profit so soon since they do not charge for the vast majority of their classes.

(2) Enrollment means a very different thing for Coursera than in a traditional educations system. As you correctly note typically only 5% of people who sign up actually finish the class. This is because signing up is the only way to browse the course material. And it is free and is not on your permanent record. Most people who sign up never intended to actually participate in the class.

(3) The “UK higher education” discussed in the HEFCE report where you get you numbers includes all forms of “knowledge transfer” in the UK including schools, consultancies, research and intellectual property. This such a broad concept of “education” it would both include Coursera itself and many, many activities that have nothing to do with what most people think education is.

I think I will stop here but I could go on: (4) unclear definition of UKHE “profitability”; (5) confusing UKHE spending with capital investment; (6) not including Coursera course’s professors and staff in student to staff ratios;…

About the only thing you have correct here is that it is still unclear if Coursera will be a successful in the long run.

Why all this misinformation? It seems to be a deliberate effort to deceive your readers. You seem to be smart and have access to lots of information. It makes no sense.