As a faculty member at a university, I have to say that these “online” courses have been a very bad idea. The most obvious problem is that it’s harder to check that the student himself is the one that does the assignments. Worse, in some jurisdictions (like ours) school transcripts don’t show which courses have been taken online, so you can’t discount grades from such courses.
Then there are issues like “FLVS gets paid only when students successfully complete the course.” This leads to perverse incentives. Education only works when the student pays up-front, before the teacher has to grade the tests.
This leads to perverse incentives. Education only works when the student pays up-front, before the teacher has to grade the tests.
What you call “perverse incentives” many of us see as good business practice. Very few industries – and make no mistake about it, “education” is an industry – has people paying “up front” for goods of undetermined quality. Why should a teacher bust their gut teaching when they are getting paid no matter what?
I can understand your concern with online courses, which makes the fact that more and more universities going to online courses all the more curious.
In other words, what matters in the real world is whether a student can do the work in real life situations. There are school districts in this country that for years passed kids based on age – not whether they can do the work.
You are correct in that there are obstacles. Some of the obstacles are similar to that raised by teacher unions to home schooling.
After awhile, it begins to appear that the unions and the teachers in traditional settings are worried or concerned about the education of a child, but only the education of a child in a manner that provides them an income.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that teachers unions are opposed to online education. Apart from the obvious danger to their jobs this poses, there’s the more general issue that labor unions are almost always hostile to innovation. Keep in mind the way that labor union contracts usually work: there are a set of predefined job categories with predefined responsibilities, predefined work practices, predefined rules, and predefined compensation, and each unionized employee does only what is specifically in his job role. Anything that disrupts this is a threat, and innovation is disruptive by its nature. Trying to foster innovation while strengthening labor unions is like trying to square the circle.
“what matters in the real world is whether a student can do the work in real life situations. ” gc, I beg to differ on this point. The piece of paper (degree) and maybe some good shmoozing skills get you the job. Incompetence rarely loses the job, especially when accomplanied by good social (shmoozing) skills. (Note, jobs where shmoozing = competence are another matter.) I read a study (there’s a study for everything) in 1997ish that indicated that only 10% competence is required to keep your job. Clearly, this applies more to some fields and employers than others.
I believe L is saying that if a student does not get a grade acceptable to him or her, he/she simply does not complete the course. This leads to grade inflation, wasted effort/cost on the part of the professor and school, etc.
If a professor is slacking, the school can (and serious schools do) take action. In the two industries I’ve worked, we know which schools are serious, which are inflated, and which are just taking money from suckers.
A critique of the article: I feel very sorry for folks who live in a virtual world. It looks and sounds snazzy but is empty. “Add more educational material to the mix” sounds perky, but I’ve never met a soul hooked on video games who has the willpower to solve Schrondinger’s equation, much less the creativity.
The individual who never interacts with real people will have limited scope for contribution to society. Chances are strong they will be consumers only. In the event of a natural disaster, they will likely die a horrible, screeching death like my hard drive with Windows 2000. Dang, I lost some good games.
I’ve never met a soul hooked on video games who has the willpower to solve Schrondinger’s equation, much less the creativity.
And exactly who do you think is creating these video games? It is people that were considered “addicted” to them.
The individual who never interacts with real people will have limited scope for contribution to society.
We’ve heard this before from the “educational professionals” who said the same thing about home schooling. Do you really think that the only social interaction in the world of a teenager or child takes place at school?
7 Comments
As a faculty member at a university, I have to say that these “online” courses have been a very bad idea. The most obvious problem is that it’s harder to check that the student himself is the one that does the assignments. Worse, in some jurisdictions (like ours) school transcripts don’t show which courses have been taken online, so you can’t discount grades from such courses.
Then there are issues like “FLVS gets paid only when students successfully complete the course.” This leads to perverse incentives. Education only works when the student pays up-front, before the teacher has to grade the tests.
So education is like psychiatry: the patient is cured only when the patient has paid.
Bob
This leads to perverse incentives. Education only works when the student pays up-front, before the teacher has to grade the tests.
What you call “perverse incentives” many of us see as good business practice. Very few industries – and make no mistake about it, “education” is an industry – has people paying “up front” for goods of undetermined quality. Why should a teacher bust their gut teaching when they are getting paid no matter what?
I can understand your concern with online courses, which makes the fact that more and more universities going to online courses all the more curious.
In other words, what matters in the real world is whether a student can do the work in real life situations. There are school districts in this country that for years passed kids based on age – not whether they can do the work.
You are correct in that there are obstacles. Some of the obstacles are similar to that raised by teacher unions to home schooling.
After awhile, it begins to appear that the unions and the teachers in traditional settings are worried or concerned about the education of a child, but only the education of a child in a manner that provides them an income.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that teachers unions are opposed to online education. Apart from the obvious danger to their jobs this poses, there’s the more general issue that labor unions are almost always hostile to innovation. Keep in mind the way that labor union contracts usually work: there are a set of predefined job categories with predefined responsibilities, predefined work practices, predefined rules, and predefined compensation, and each unionized employee does only what is specifically in his job role. Anything that disrupts this is a threat, and innovation is disruptive by its nature. Trying to foster innovation while strengthening labor unions is like trying to square the circle.
“what matters in the real world is whether a student can do the work in real life situations. ”
gc, I beg to differ on this point. The piece of paper (degree) and maybe some good shmoozing skills get you the job. Incompetence rarely loses the job, especially when accomplanied by good social (shmoozing) skills. (Note, jobs where shmoozing = competence are another matter.) I read a study (there’s a study for everything) in 1997ish that indicated that only 10% competence is required to keep your job. Clearly, this applies more to some fields and employers than others.
I believe L is saying that if a student does not get a grade acceptable to him or her, he/she simply does not complete the course. This leads to grade inflation, wasted effort/cost on the part of the professor and school, etc.
If a professor is slacking, the school can (and serious schools do) take action. In the two industries I’ve worked, we know which schools are serious, which are inflated, and which are just taking money from suckers.
A critique of the article: I feel very sorry for folks who live in a virtual world. It looks and sounds snazzy but is empty. “Add more educational material to the mix” sounds perky, but I’ve never met a soul hooked on video games who has the willpower to solve Schrondinger’s equation, much less the creativity.
The individual who never interacts with real people will have limited scope for contribution to society. Chances are strong they will be consumers only. In the event of a natural disaster, they will likely die a horrible, screeching death like my hard drive with Windows 2000. Dang, I lost some good games.
I’ve never met a soul hooked on video games who has the willpower to solve Schrondinger’s equation, much less the creativity.
And exactly who do you think is creating these video games? It is people that were considered “addicted” to them.
The individual who never interacts with real people will have limited scope for contribution to society.
We’ve heard this before from the “educational professionals” who said the same thing about home schooling. Do you really think that the only social interaction in the world of a teenager or child takes place at school?
Gitarcarver writes:
Do you really think that the only social interaction in the world of a teenager or child takes place at school?
Considering I was the fat, four-eyed kid who got beaten up, I hope not.
Bob