Link - http://chronicle.com/article/The-Quiet-Revolution-in-Open/127545/

Basically, any community college in the U.S. that receives federal funds in the future for online classes will have to make their material for those classes available to everyone, for free, under a creative commons license. OER's are not new, but the big deal about this development is that people will be able to obtain college credit for self-teaching without paying tuition. This is huge.

EDIT for accuracy: The article doesn't state that autodidacts will be able to get credit without paying tuition, it just hints that it might be a possibility.

I'm a big fan of this. I have a degree, but I have also done a lot of self-education. It seems like nobody takes you serious though without college credit.

So, is there any precedent for this in other nations? Any problems for it being implemented? I am hopeful that this will help Creative Commons licenses get more recognition here when the impact of this development is fully realized.

The structure is useful to some folks, though you're technically correct. This is the natural evolution of MIT's Open Courseware stuff, which made lectures, notes, and tests available online for free to everyone. Considering that the first world is handing out low power, rugged netbooks to a lot of kids growing up in shithole countries right now, and there are people launching internet uplinks on weather baloons over Africa one might hope that some countries can develop far faster than they otherwise would have.

Shit, I think you're right.


"That still leaves the problem of credit. Public libraries were the original OER, yet people can't demand a diploma just because they've learned from a book. But here, too, new developments are under way. The latest and most sophisticated open educational resources have tests embedded within them because assessment is a fundamental element of learning. Feedback-based, assessment-driven "cognitive tutors" developed by learning scientists at Carnegie Mellon are woven into science, engineering, and philosophy courses produced by the university's Open Learning Initiative. For example, studies have shown that their online statistics course produces equal or better learning results than do traditional lectures. The same Carnegie Mellon experts will be helping the federal-grant recipients design their educational tools. Assessments create evidence. And that's all a credit is, in the end: credible evidence of learning."


I should have read this part closer. I took this paragraph to mean that they were working on making tests in order to get credit for these courses. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but it's wishful thinking on my part. So, not as big a deal. Delete thread.

I still find it hard to bitch about a step in the absolute correct direction. It's not like it's a boondoggle, the public is getting something back for its money. Usually it goes the other way (e.g. all that "expensive" research into drugs that supposedly justifies insane prices, yeah, often initially a ton of that research is done at public institutions on the public's dime, then is given away or sold for like 5k to drug companies).

If it's just for government grants, that's a good thing, however if it covers other materials that's definitely something that I'm completely opposed to.

I'm just a week or two away from getting my TESL, and the problem that I have with this is that it's going to leave teachers in a position where they're effectively being paid to make themselves obsolete. Colleges typically get their funds based in part upon the enrollment, if enough students don't enroll, a class is cancelled and somebody loses a class.

The problem is that when all is said and done the curriculum is being created for specific classes and if those classes don't get taught, then the curriculum isn't made and there are no materials to release. It is worrying that teachers might have to release materials for a class that they're going to teach but ultimately gets canceled due to low enrollment.

The problem ultimately is an insufficient degree of funding for the schools, this sort of measure is at best a band aid over larger systemic problems. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't do significant damage to the wider educational establishment.

Personally, I've got no problems with the Khan Academy and various other institutions of that nature, but you have to be really careful when you do something like this without carefully weighing the potential consequences and allowing this to cover more than just the federal grants and or allow for credits to be earned this way would be bad for everybody.

The only thing worth hearing from colleges right now is: We'll drop the requirement for taking a bunch of bullshit classes so we can suck out as much money from you as possible by saying a degree takes a certain number of credits, regardless of where half those credits comes from.

Make that news. Then I'll be happy. Because except for the homework, this shit's already on Wikipedia anyhow.

It doesn't really make them obsolete though, because the piece of paper that says you did it still costs tuition. Besides that, a lot of these folks are public servants, if they can make themselves obsolete it is in the public's best interest that they do so. It's not like there's a lack of worthwhile endeavors in which smart folks can engage themselves afterward.

I was hoping that this was a way to not have to do that. It's very hard to convince a potential employer that you are qualified for a job without that credit. It's BS that someone has to pay tuition to a college for credit in a class the college didn't teach. Such is life and it's a reason why I decided to be self-employed. I thought some teachers would feel this way. I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a problem. If some traditional teaching jobs became obsolete, there could still be a demand for private tutors. Lumberjacks feared that the chainsaw would put many of them out of jobs way back in the day because it made the industry more efficient. They're still around without being publicly funded.

Here in Finland, not only do I not have to pay tuition (because it's all free, from kindergarten to university), but I actually get paid for studying and I also get some pretty great student discounts.

Some of the university material is freely available online. As far as I know, anyone can attend most of the university lectures (attending exams might have a price for non university students, not sure). I think stuff like medical doctor studies are protected so you have to be accepted in there to get further in those ones. Though, it's easiest* just to enroll into a university, if you pass the exam, you're a university student and there's none of that hassle anymore.

(*some of the entry exams are the devil, but they're not going to let people just skip that)

Anyway, it works.

As far as I know, that's true. My knowledge about these things is admittedly lacking.

Could that crippling effect of the hypothetical tax hikes be lessened by taxing the rich harder? Or is the number of rich people to that of poor/middle class people ratio that bad? Just for argument's sake, with the thought that the rich wouldn't throw a fit that'll destroy the local time space continuum. What I'm suggesting could be complete hogwash as I don't even understand how these systems work (and there's always stuff like greed and reality ruining it for everyone).

Free knowledge for everyone (with an Internet connection), fuck yeah!

What exactly then is the difference between a student attending the lecture and a drifter coming in off the street and attending the lecture?

Should both get credit for that lecture?

I can waltz into any lecture at the university here too. The showstopper is the exam, result of which is the only thing that is tracked. Your attendance is not - regardless of how many hours you worked or not, or whether you worked from home or not.

Obviously profession studies are protected - you can't get a medical exam by attending lectures and taking individual exams.

I fear that completely open education opens a path where the boundaries between accepted level of understanding and unaccepted level of understanding are slowly washed out - can you figure bored soccer moms passing engineering exams while on maternity leave and then demanding to work as engineers, without ever stepping foot in a lecture hall?

We need to protect these paths of accreditation that lead to profession titles - chartered engineers, doctors, lawyers - but we do not need to protect the knowledge and information.

The main reason I mentioned that you can attend university lectures is because to my understanding there are ways to make some sort of deals so you can get course credit in a university without being enrolled there. For example, back when I was in high school some of my teachers suggested I should attend university classes and get some university credit in advance (this plan was then foiled by the fact that attending high school classes is obligatory).

The important differences between a student and a drifter in a lecture hall would probably be motivation (and it isn't obvious that the students are more motivated) and the status of enrollment. If the drifter attends, learns and gets a deal to take the exam, I see no reason to stop them in most cases. If the drifter later gets into the university, the course he took before is just as valid as to those who already had a student status (assuming the curriculum hasn't changed dramatically making it obsolete regarding his studies).

Exams are a means to gauge the attendees skill, but it's far from a perfect system and, as I see it, used more out of necessity than faith. The work put into studies is obviously more important than the exam, but to appraise that properly you'd need an overtly elaborate system.

I agree about the profession studies needing to be protected, though some professions that fall under the title of engineer aren't worth the title. I spent some 8 months (before fleeing) in a university of applied sciences to become a media technology engineer, and frankly, to my eyes, what you needed to pass and graduate were sub-high school level knowledge and know-how. In cases like that, I think they're mislabeled as engineers and the profession should not be protected (I don't even know if it is, actually).

About the soccer moms, I don't believe the stepping into a lecture hall is the important factor in becoming competent. Many of those that constantly enter said halls only play tic tac toe while inside. Nevertheless, I do think that the soccer moms and whatnot that have self studied should still go through some sort of a "make sure they know what they're doing" period/classes. Naturally, the most important jobs shouldn't be open to such deviations from the common path.

I'm so glad I don't have to decide these things :D

Free information is good, usually. Some odd times it's better to miss some details, but that hardly applies here.

/edit: I mistranslated a word, fixed