The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) advised Obama, in a public letter, to let the market decide the fate of the education sector with respect to massive open online courses (MOOCs).

The letter points out the desperate situation for students in America. Over the past decade, the costs of education have increased 5.1% higher than inflation every year. Over the past two decades before that, they increased 3.8% every year above inflation. Worse yet, over the last 10 years the difference between tuition and financial aid has increased 6.7% per year above inflation.

With the rising cost, the middle class, who typically find it difficult to qualify for aid, is hit the hardest. The loans students must take out in order to ensure their skills in the workforce can weigh them down during a very crucial moment in their lives. Tactics must therefore be used to ensure that students stay out of the red.

The Benefits of MOOCs

PCAST hopes that the advances of information technology in higher education can decrease costs, increase quality, adapt individual educational styles, and empower the workforce with continuous learning. However, they admit that these advances have not yet come to full fruition.

Of particular interest to PCAST is the fact that MOOCs can bring in over 100,000 students per course. This is something colleges and universities have not missed either. Hundreds of higher education institutions have jumped on the bandwagon and are now offering MOOCs in one form or another. The movement has also spawned for-profit companies like Coursera and Udacity, as well as non-profit organizations like edX. Most importantly, the scalability involved with MOOCs brings thousands of students affordable, quality education.

PCAST advised that though the technologies behind MOOCs are in their infancy, they have the potential to change education forever. PCAST feels that MOOCs can offer better assessments of student competency, and the ability to change or improve the course based on student comprehension and feedback in real-time.

The council suggests that the market is shifting towards a pay-optional system to cover the costs of the ever-changing courses. In this set up, participation would be free, but assessment, certification, and credits towards degrees would all cost money. However, the costs would be drastically reduced in comparison to offline education.

For instance, PCAST cites Georgia Tech, AT&T and Udacity, who recently declared the creation of a computer science master’s degree in January 2014 that will be delivered as a MOOC. To take such a degree offline would cost a Georgia Tech student $47000, as a MOOC, it would be a mere $6600. Initial degree enrolment will be limited to 600 students, but it is estimated to grow to 10,000 within three years. The courses are otherwise free to participants or can be priced on a per course credit basis.

The Drawbacks of MOOCs

As any new technology enters the market, PCAST warns that there will be failures. San Jose State University’s math and statistics course, at $150/course, was cited as one such bump on the road. The course, offered through Udacity, bombed due to its low pass rates. This natural outcome of experimentation should be expected, however, just as many tablet computers failed in the 90’s and 00’s before the iPad came along.

One double-edged sword associated with MOOCs in the market is the potential to reduce the cost of education by displacing the labor associated with academics. Even offline, the number of TAs and professors will be limited if MOOC-esque technologies are implemented. The natural aversion by faculty in relation to this potential is another obstacle to MOOCs. However, I assume that faculty and TAs will be able to adapt and survive if MOOCs are indeed the future.

Other concerns of the adoption of MOOCs include the loss of face-to-face contact with teachers, students, and extracurricular activities. Furthermore, as the cost of education decreases, the attention of students may decrease as the financial risk reduces. I certainly remember a different attitude towards “partying vs. making every class” between some students that paid their own way and some that didn’t.

Of greater concern is the concept of critical thinking. Online education has certainly proven that they can foster learning and the comprehension of a topic. However, the jury is still out on if they are able to create a level of independent thought and critical thinking fostered by higher education.

The Verdict

After all is said and done, given the above, PCAST offered the President three suggestions for the Federal Government:

1. Let the market decide. The outcome is impossible to predict and showing bias with subsidies to either side, or individual MOOC providers, would be premature and potentially detrimental at this time.

2. Encourage flexibility in education accreditations with respect to innovation. Many of the standards set out by the regional accreditation organizations are irrelevant to online education. The government should encourage that these standards be modified with respect to online courses and degrees. Setting a high bar could end the MOOC industry before it really gets off the ground.

3. Support and share research on effective learning and teaching through grants and other means. MOOCs are able to collect big data with respect to education. This data can help to understand the difference of learning online, as well as the differences ethnicity, gender, and economic status may have on the students’ experience. This level of information can be beneficial to both online and offline educators.

One thing is for certain though; MOOCs have definitely made a big impact over the past few years if they have made it to the top of the big man’s desk.

Source Whitehouse.gov