I can’t read much of the recent piece of Thrun hagiography without wanting to do bodily harm to myself, so this following analysis might miss some of the subtlety of the article. I’ve tried to push myself to read it fully, and I really just can’t. From the photo up top of Thrun in what looks to be a 1973 Swedish cycling film, to the URL (“uphill climb”, get it?), to the vast research incompetence of the unbelievably compromised reporter who wrote it, every paragraph reminds us that Fast Company and other such publications exist as a sort of Pravda for the Valley set. With apologies, of course, to Pravda.
But if I read the article right, Sebastian Thrun, a man who slaved a full hour over a lesson he had to correct in between displays of physical prowess, is done with the traditional higher education market.
But for Thrun, who had been wrestling over who Udacity’s ideal students should be, the results were not a failure; they were clarifying. “We were initially torn between collaborating with universities and working outside the world of college,” Thrun tells me. The San Jose State pilot offered the answer. “These were students from difficult neighborhoods, without good access to computers, and with all kinds of challenges in their lives,” he says. “It’s a group for which this medium is not a good fit.”
What is the answer? Move to a market segment where innovator-preneurs are free to innovator-preneuriate. Here’s one of the new classes, taught by educator-preneur Chris Wilson:
If Wilson seems slightly unprofessional as an educator, that’s because his only formal teaching credential is as an assistant scuba-diving instructor. Wilson works at Google as a developer advocate in the company’s Chrome division. His class was conceived, and paid for, by Google as a way to attract developers to its platforms. Over the past year, Udacity has recruited a dozen or so companies, including Autodesk, Intuit, Cloudera, Nvidia, 23andMe, and Salesforce.com, which had sent a couple of reps to discuss a forthcoming course on how to best use its application programming interface, or API. The companies pay to produce the classes and pledge to accept the certificates awarded by Udacity for purposes of employment.
There’ll likely be lots of analysis on this article and change in direction. He’s my little contribution. Thrun can’t build a bucket that doesn’t leak, so he’s going to sell sieves. I discussed this a bit a year ago in Why We Shouldn’t Talk MOOCs as Meritocracies (graph at top seems broken, sorry):
It’s that central point that I want to deal with though – that as a society we need only be interested in equality of opportunity, and that wide disparities of results on display are in fact OK, because they represent the system working its sorting magic. The people that have merit, who put in the work are succeeding. The people that don’t are not.
I hear this tossed around as an answer to MOOC failure rate, and it scares me a bit. It has taken decades for us to get to a point in higher education and K-12 where we are held accountable for social outcomes. And while there are flaws in the way those outcomes are measured, I know my own institution has actually undergone a sea change since I attended. We still struggle, occasionally, with faculty who think their job is to thin the class on its way up, but on the whole most faculty are committed to increasing the student success rate…similarly, my child’s grade school has moved heaven and earth to successfully teach skills to children that would have been abandoned years ago.
Udacity dithered for a bit on whether it would be accountable for student outcomes. Failures at San Jose State put an end to that. The move now is to return to the original idea: high failure rates and dropouts are features, not bugs, because they represent a way to thin pools of applicants for potential employers. Thrun is moving to an area where he is unaccountable, because accountability is hard.
It’s tempting to say good riddance, but I would add just one more thing. Despite giving up on equality of outcomes, Thrun still believes he is in the education business. Fast Company still believes he’s in education. So do a lot of policy makers.
And it’s quite possible to go to a model of education that sees its primary goal as thinning the herd. Such systems have existed in many places throughout history. There is no reason that this version of education can’t come back, and every day we allow Thrun to pretend he is not running from accountability is a day we move closer to such a model. That future involves an “uphill climb” for the people who need our help the most, and I’m hoping we can avoid it.
22 thoughts on “Thrun Enters Burgeoning Sieve Market”
Thank you Mike – you said what I was too angry to try to say today!
The article is a nice ‘puff piece’ about a bloke with no real credentials or experience in the field of teaching and learning, but who’s good with technology and likes projects with a bit of novelty. Good man to have in your team, not the right guy to run your Ed Tech project.
It looks like he’s finally figured out what the industry already knew. The market for short online courses is the short course market. And the market that makes a buck is the one targeting specific industry products. Actually the real market for online is in the compliance area, he should figure that out by 2015.
I enjoyed your response to the Thrun profile. Please read mine:
I continue to be a fan of Thrun’s bold and inspiring vision for MOOCs and their role in benefiting society.
I’m rather new to the topic of MOOCs. What puzzles me the most regarding this issue is that internal and external stakeholders feel as though higher education should be held more accountability, yet from the research I’ve done thus far, there seems to be little if any professional credentialing that is needed to teach an MOOC course? How can that be?
There is ZERO professional credentialing needed to teach a MOOC. That is because a MOOC is a Massive Online Open Course, i.e. it is open as in FREE. The problem with MOOCs isn’t the instructors as much as the entire format and premise upon which MOOCs are based, as the post says.
Those internal stakeholders you mention *could* care about accountability, (e.g. edtech course creators such as Thrun’s Udacity) but they don’t. The external stakeholders–such as the poor souls who spent good money for MOOCs that didn’t result in much or any learning (e.g. The University of Pennsylvania who paid for and offered 3500 Coursera MOOCs, the San Jose State University students who didn’t learn algebra from Udacity’s MOOC, the taxpayers of Santa Clara County who paid for that Udacity algebra MOOC)–DO care! They should have demanded proof of MOOC effectiveness, prior to being concerned about professional credentialing of the instructors… although the latter wasn’t always so great either.
Somebody necessarily help to make seriously posts I might
state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and up to now?
I amazed with the research you made to create this actual
post amazing. Magnificent task!