Hi, welcome to week nine. And this is the screen side chats. The first question I want to address was the one that I posted which asked do massive, open online course platforms challenge legitimacy of modern universities. And this varied from community colleges to online universities, to public institutions with large classes, to even elite universities, and kind of asking how this affects that. And I tried to be a little provocative to see if we could get a serious thread on the forum. And we did, a lot of you contributed and I was really pleased to see the depth of discussion is really remarkable. I don't think I could get that in a classroom. But with this many people online, it seems to be something that can occur. And if you have the time actually read through them all, it's quite interesting and informative. I think the opinions varied from some of you thought no way, there's just no way it would ever make a dent. And it won't put any of these universities out of business. And the argument was that there were too many strengths in face to face interaction of classrooms. And what's lost in kind of an online format is this connection with each other. The fact that I'm here online asynchronously speaking to you, and a talking, head if anything. And then, it's hard for you to connect with the material without this kind of personal relationship with me or the TAs or each other. And so, even on the forum people complain that maybe that's not a real relationship either. Another reason that people feel like it won't ever challenge is because it won't necessarily be credentialed, that cheating will always be a problem, and so on. I don't think that is true, actually. I think quite soon and already they're being credential, and we're finding ways to address cheating much like we can in face the face. I mean, even then people do it. So, there's always a way, but it's actually quite small in terms of the proportion. I mean, I know I sent an e-mail out about the papers, but really it was like three or four total. And it's just a matter of establishing a norm and us looking for those kind of things, as opposed to it being a huge problem. Now, the other thing that makes the answer no, is that, as JC says, it's not just Shari, Helen, Peter, JC also mentioned that universities entail far more than teaching. So even if this one function of teaching is done online, it's not necessarily going to challenge the legitimacy of universities. The extent to which a university is based only on teaching, then maybe it might be moreso. Now, some of you also argued that it might have some replacements. So a little more of a moderate claim. And Tammy was like this as well as and they wrote that this might compete with online learning for preparatory knowledge, and especially if it gets credentialed. And I think this is true. And if it is credentialed, it could lead to consolidation across these platforms and universities, or even kind of partnerships. And I think that's probably likely, especially given that credentialing is on it's way and happening now. Now, other people argued for something more lenient even, saying these online universities compliment and enhance the brick and mortar universities. So Store had argued that it enhances the legitimacy of elite schools by taking something that used to be kind of sacred knowledge for only a select few with access and extending it to wide populace, right? So this enhances the legitimacy, or moral legitimacy, of prestigious, private universities that were not reaching a public. Another one, like Julius argued, that it advertises elite schools. So it's kind of self-interested, that we get better recruits this way. That maybe some of you will apply to our programs in the hopes of furthering. This is a taste of the kind of education you might get. Vernon and, I apologize if I butcher names, Satiendra, talked about how it compliments and enhances the brick and mortar university by democratizing and us sharing ideas, and this kind of leads the brick and mortar university to ups its game to improve its teaching. And Bridgett wrote that MOOCs appeal to a different group. So it's not really competitive, it's complementary. These individuals on the online forum are lifelong learners. So, you guys are less interested in kind of a real course, in the sense of a large commitment that the students in my class do in terms of writing many papers, and would prefer something a little more of intrinsic motive, kind of perusal of the material at the depth that what you can do why you hold down full time jobs and families and the like. So, that's another argument, that it compliments and enhances as opposed to replace. And some of you argue that some fields will be safe from this kind of MOOC. I hate the term, too. I'd rather be OOC [LAUGH] or something else. But, and maybe as it gets saturated, it will be OOCs, it won't be as massive. But some fields are safe, and and Joy argued this, that some fields require a physical space, like the practice of medicine. You need nursing and medicine, the training of that requires it. And Daphne Koller, one of the leaders of Coursera, actually even argues that it won't replace advanced graduate research classes where you write 20, 30 page papers kind of thing. That that will always remain safe, because it's difficult to see how an online format would appeal to this kind of mentored, closer relationship, with advanced graduate students. That said, some of you took an extreme opposite view which was that maybe nothing's safe, that even elite universities all the way down to community colleges and online universities will be in jeopardy. Elena argued that this is a new wave that would change all, and the idea that it's just so affordable will kind of pull away individuals, because the cost of schooling, even in public institutions, has become a problem, that this will lead to a downsizing perhaps at universities, or whatever. But that's to be seen. I don't know. But there were a spectrum of views. I think they hinged on what the advantages of online learning are, as well as what the problems of online learning are. And Shirley, as always, has these great lists that recounts things very nicely, and she talked about how MOOCS extend appeal to a larger market. I mean, here we're addressing so many people I would never address if I just stayed in my office, or [LAUGH] in a classroom here on campus. And that this is also possibly a new source of revenue for the university in some ways, that it's a different kind of business model, potentially, that its advertising its moral legitimacy as a resource that may be a private university is getting. And in addition, it might up the kind of human capital we have applying here. It may also be that employers want the results of these MOOCs and we can use that. Could be that the thing, an effort to kind of create an iTunes of readings that are more affordable, but bought in mass, usually academic readings aren't bought very much. So this kind of context would bring it to the masses, and that may be a revenue. I don't know. I do realize that there may be these advantages, and some of the articles you guys suggested to read on the forum, these newspaper articles and magazine articles actually address that. But there's real advantages to the online, like it's cheaper, it's more flexible. You can self-pace learning. It has international kinds of interactions that I just can't see in terms of scope and breadth of incomes that we have out there. It has the potential for different linguistic groups to interact with each other as these, the forums eventually will have multiple languages and translations across them, I think. So all that will be facilitated. And even Ken Evans made this comment that, look, it's so cheap that universities will see it as saving money because of infrastructure. I mean, you, upkeep of buildings and cost of these things costs, it's redundant, but they take a lot of money. And that's the idea. On the other hand, they're full of problems, the MOOCs. And they're impersonal. They're too big in some ways. The forum can get unwieldy. The asynchronous aspect may not be desirable by some. A nice list is put out by. It does a great job of comparing the benefits and costs of all this. The future of online platforms is also interesting, because I think it helps us think about whether there will be challenges or not. And Daphne's interview that someone posted was nice, where she talked about how Coursera within five years will be 3,000 courses, which is the size of Penn, University of Pennsylvania, a very good private university. The credentialing will occur, cheating will be prohibited, we'll have facial recognition by a photo and you sitting in front of a camera, and whether it moves we'll know whether it's you, various logins and what not to proctor the exam in a way that's just as good as in person. At least as reliable. Katerina wrote that experiments are also being imposed on these platforms to see if we can learn something about education and compare different pedagogies on scale. We're trying to learn from you in a great part, so please fill out the exit survey. And mentions that MOOCs are trying to look more and more like an in-class experience. So over time this will occur and they'll become more legitimate. So right now they might not be very legitimate, but as we introduce things like group project spaces, Skype sessions with TAs and me, maybe that are more synchronous kind of encounters, they'll come closer and closer to a real classroom experience, probably. So I don't think that, the technology probably will afford opportunities for it to become kind of a higher quality experience over time. However, it does afford the capacity for us to do it at scale. And I think some quality's lost, but I think it might be short-sighted to think that we can't find clever ways to kind of get around some of those issues. Now, a lot of rational myths are being challenged, I think, by the MOOCs. And in particular, Lotte, or Lotie, I wish if you would tell me if the o is long or short or whatever. My mid-western pronunciation might sound like lorgy, but anyhow let me know. Your name, how to say it. But in terms of the rational myths, I think you nailed on a bunch. And access reflects skill and merit, that we think there's something special about access to knowledge, that it's deserved, perhaps that's a myth. Perhaps face to face learning is a better way to learn. Is it really the best way to learn? We haven't really explored that in terms of a great deal of experimentation and research. So it's feasible that other forms of online learning may be as effective. In fact, there are studies coming out now that challenge some of these notions. The myth that a credential reflects skill and completion is also interesting. We do credential a lot of people and universities, and the level of skill and completion rates may be highly variable. We don't look that deeply, perhaps. Hopefully, the assessments we do are quite informative, but it does rely on some trust from the students. And another myth is that class discussions must be in person, that they can't be asynchronous, or asynchronous is less valuable. Another one is that crowdsourcing or peer evaluation challenges the notion of expert evaluation. The students here were a little concerned about peer evaluation at first, and demanded that I also grade their papers in person, as do the TAs. I think that was a legitimacy concern to some extent about crowdsourcing, whether it is valid or not. There have been some studies about that lately, like Mitchell [INAUDIBLE] and various people on Coursera studying the accuracy of grades. Another one that Paul, I think, raised was whether a degree is a myth itself and what that entails. We kind of believe in them, these credentials. But what's behind them? So there's a lot of places there. And I think the anonymous, there was an anonymous writer who wrote that the logic of competence, this rationalization of MOOCs is being built up as we go. That employers, if we can get them to view a MOOC as legitimate, then we have this logic of competence, they'll be a rationalized myth. So, this is all kind of a changing terrain. It's very interesting. I began this course mostly to see what it's like, out of curiosity, and to experience it, and to grow and learn and think about how I do my teaching and research in different ways. And that's true. It has changed how I think. And hopefully it has for students out there and here. I've tried to make the class here a flipped class, and hopefully they get to experience this new kind of organization in a way, and reflect on it that they have a meta-experience of being engaged in this platform and thinking about how it challenges our notion, like a garbage can on the forum or that the occurrence of the challenges of legitimacy might pertain to neo-institutional theory and things like that. So, I've tried to make that kind of part of their meta reflected experience of what I think of a deeper pedagogy that you do something and as you do it you reflect on your experiences. So it's kind of in doing, learning by doing. So I think that's happened. But, ultimately, I think the MOOCs are an expansion of the university, and the change in the environment that in particular, I think it helps private universities to some extent with large endowments to make a claim that we haven't had about beyond just research. Now, we teach the public, not just research. Most of what my legitimacy comes from is in terms of research. It's not teaching. I don't really get tremendous amounts of respect or pay increases or anything. It's research. But now, with the expansion of access and how we can reach people through teaching, we're reaching a far larger public. And the claims that elite universities, or private universities, are just elitist and not concerned with the public seems to be partly treated by this. And I think it's a good thing about sharing knowledge and increasing access and serving that. But I do worry about what that will do to community colleges, like any kind of survey class or any kind of large, 800 person lecture course. These things might actually lose some of their resources and their students who would rather take these introductory credential courses rather than going to the community college or local online class if they can do it more cheaply online and get the same results for free. So I do think that that will be kind of a shake up in the market a little bit as we try to figure it out. But I don't think it's going to challenge a Stanford in terms of most of the legitimacy of Stanford comes from research and the production of novel information and other functions that the university has besides teaching. And I think, if anything, we can make claims that our teaching is reaching wider populace than just the best of the best. And in other ways we're just marketing, and hopefully attracting amazing people out there that I'm, see on the forum all the time. So, hopefully, it's kind of a mixture as opposed to a no or a yes in terms of replacing universities or doing nothing to them. I don't think that's true. I think it's kind of a middle ground of being a compliment and extending the functions of universities. If anything, the university function has grown over 100 years to expand and address more segments of the environment so as to be a legitimate with it and to secure more resources. So it's along winded way of saying what I think about that first question. And hopefully I've compiled a lot of what you have said, because it was very helpful and trying to organize my thoughts on the matter. Thanks.