MOOCs are all the rage

 MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are all the rage. Tom Friedman (NYT, Jan 27), the perennially uncritical purveyor of modernity, loves it.  Coursera loves the free publicity. And we old-school professors are supposed to be worried about something that has the potential to take our lunch. Should we be worried?

One thing MOOCs are likely to do is sort out the difference between "certification" and "learning". There is a misconception that learning consists of the transmission and absorption of facts, but like certification this particular function of universities is sort of trivial, and can easily be taken over by an online conglomerate. How are MOOCs different from giving somebody a reading list, testing them on what they've read and handing them a piece of paper as a result? What can anyone do with that? Also, MOOCs perpetuate (and profit from) the myths of the "star professor" and the "prestigious university" as critical factors in learning. They're not; the critical factor is the mind doing the learning. Learning is primarily participatory.

Teaching (beyond mere certification for an entry-level job) includes instilling in someone the ability and desire to form original connections, to go further, to question foundations. This is partly innate, but can be fostered by socialization, by hanging out (physically) with others in the same frame of mind. It requires long-term immersion in a subject, to the point of developing a sort of love for it, and a social environment (including exchanging ideas beyond the confines of the subject itself.) I guess MOOCs are OK for mass learning (and to broaden access to current developments), but they're a long way from being able to recreate, say, the atmosphere of a mathematics research institute.