Sebastian Thrun [the Stanford computer science professor famous for leading the team that built Google's self-driving car]… is offering his “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence” course online and free of charge. His remote students will get the same lectures as students paying $50,000 a year, the same assignments, the same exams and, if they pass, a “statement of accomplishment” (though not Stanford credit). When The Times wrote about this last month, 58,000 students had signed up for the course. After the article, enrollment leapt to 130,000, from across the globe.
Thrun’s ultimate mission is a virtual university in which the best professors broadcast their lectures to tens of thousands of students. Testing, peer interaction and grading would happen online; a cadre of teaching assistants would provide some human supervision; and the price would be within reach of almost anyone. “Literally, we can probably get the same quality of education I teach in class for about 1 to 2 percent of the cost,” Thrun told me.
The traditional university, in his view, serves a fortunate few, inefficiently, with a business model built on exclusivity. “I’m not at all against the on-campus experience,” he said. “I love it. It’s great. It has a lot of things which cannot be replaced by anything online. But it’s also insanely uneconomical.”
Thrun acknowledges that there are still serious quality-control problems to be licked. How do you keep an invisible student from cheating? How do you even know who is sitting at that remote keyboard? Will the education really be as compelling — and will it last? Thrun believes there are technological answers to all of these questions, some of them being worked out already by other online frontiersmen.
“If we can solve this,” he said, “I think it will disrupt all of higher education.”
Disrupt is right. It would be an earthquake for the majority of colleges that depend on tuition income rather than big endowments and research grants. Many could go the way of local newspapers. There would be huge audiences and paychecks for superstar teachers, but dimmer prospects for those who are less charismatic…
As The Times’s Matt Richtel recently reported, there is remarkably little data showing that technology-centric schooling improves basic learning. It is quite possible that the infatuation with technology has diverted money from things known to work — training better teachers, giving kids more time in school…
“In the same way that a lot of things go into the cost of a newspaper that have nothing to do with the quality of the reporting — the cost of newsprint and delivery — we should ask the same thing about universities,” [Stanford president] Hennessy told me. “When is the infrastructure of the university particularly valuable — as it is, I believe, for an undergraduate residential experience — and when is it secondary to the learning process?”
But, he notes, “One has to think about the sustainability of all these things. In the end, the content providers have to get paid.”
-
Recent Posts
- Team unearths what may be secret weapon against antibiotic resistance
- Hazing: How to hide in nearly plain sight | Student Science
- 3quarksdaily: Philosophy is a Bunch of Empty Ideas: Interview with Peter Unger
- Thirst for water moves and shakes California | Student Science
- Digital displays get flexible | Student Science
Recent Comments
- Jeff Ollerton on 56 Indicators of Impact
- Jodie on 56 Indicators of Impact
- Brigitte on From Peer Review to the Wisdom of Crowds? Open Access & Peer Review | History Workshop
- Adam on Scenes from another academic conference
- Altmetrics: achieving and measuring success in communicating research in the digital age | Hazel Hall on 56 Indicators of Impact
Archives
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
Categories
- Accountability
- Basic News
- Broader Impacts
- Calls for papers
- Climate Change
- Conferences Upcoming
- Convergence
- Creative & Visual Science
- CSID Publications
- Degrowth Economics
- Economics & STEM Research
- Environmental policy
- Field Philosophy
- Future of the University
- Gas Fracking
- Globalization
- Graduate Studies
- Innovation
- institutionalizing interdisciplinarity
- Interdisciplinarity
- Libraries
- Metrics
- Multidisciplinarity
- NASA
- New Books
- New Lexicon
- NIH
- NOAA
- NSF
- Occupy Wall Street
- Open Access
- Peer Review
- Philosophy & Politics
- Public Pedagogy
- Public Philosophizing
- Science and technology ramifications
- STEM Policy
- Sustainability, Risk Management, & Long-Term Security
- TechnoScience & Technoscientism
- Transdisciplinarity
- Transformative Research
- Uncategorized
- US Science Agencies
Meta
Very interesting article about education, Alex. I was talking about this same subject with Kelli and Keith today. I think the whole education system is wrong, and not just here, all around the world the same thing happens – unfortunately. And if we thought about Einstein, would he be a great, even a good, student by today’s standards? He wrote just a couple of papers, each one just a couple of pages long.