Some folks attribute less than altruistic motives to startup companies providing Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs). There is nothing bad in help, no doubts, like consulting and advising efficient tools (check this post), but sometimes it’s just too good to be true.
My colleague, Ian Bogost suspects that MOOC providers aren’t really interested in learning. In a recent blog he says:
MOOC providers don’t actually care about education anyway. They’re merely using education as a cover story, as the latest “industry ripe for disruption.” Just as Google hasn’t necessarily provided a better version of journalism but simply a more centralized, leveraged, and privately beneficial one, so Coursera won’t necessarily do so for education either. In fact, success for MOOCs doesn’t require better education. All it requires is fungibility.
I don’t mean to pick on Ian (even though he seems to like it). There are certainly many others who hold this view as well.
Yes, of course for-profit companies seek profit. And Ian’s point about the alignment between goals for education and VC is an important one.
But I think folks are attributing a bit too much evil to capitalism. Claiming “MOOC providers don’t actually care about education anyway” is a bit like saying the iPhone creators don’t care about communication, or that movie producers don’t care about narrative. None of these for-profit activities will succeed unless they provide value to their customers.
Let me point out another for-profit company in this space that a lot of us use: piazza.com (a course-based discussion forum provider). I find their service extremely valuable to my pedagogy. I also know that a lot of my anti-MOOC colleagues use them. They’re a for profit and they care a lot about how learning works. But they’re below the radar in this debate because they’re not apparently trying to tell us how to teach (I guess). And then there’s the inconvenient fact that one of the “big three” in the MOOC provider space is EdX, a not for profit.
Udacity, Coursera and piazza will only “exit” if they generate revenue (or show strong promise for revenue a la instagram). And to do that they’ll have to deliver value to their customers.
I think what disturbs the traditional educational establishment is the question of who are the customers? Certainly these providers’ motives are going to be aligned with their customers, and traditional educators are not their customers. The students are of course.
I trust that the market is going to find a way to deliver a fantastic educational product valued by students. And I believe that can only happen if the providers care how learning works.
The final product Udacity et al deliver is also going to be a lot different from the traditional university experience in the same way that an iPhone differs from your office phone. But I believe both products will continue to exist for a long time.
the augmented trader 
Ian Bogost
January 7, 2013
Just a clarification: the fundamental matter to me isn’t whether capitalism is evil, or even whether MOOCs are evil, but whether and how education should be involved in capitalism in general.
As for MOOC providers caring about education, perhaps a better characterization would be that MOOC providers don’t have to care primarily about education to be successful.
anonymous
February 6, 2013
Customer is the one who pays, right ? If courses are to remain completely free, then its students won’t become customers. If for example companies are to aquire data from coursera then they will becomes customers. Just like Jaron Lanier said about facebook: its users are not customers, but companies who do business on facebook and pay facebook are customers. Users are more like cows that are milked one way or the other :) I think it’s important metaphor and distinction because shape of product is ultimately defined for the real customer, not for the cow.
Javier
October 18, 2015
I believe it can be used in many ways as mentioned by the author. To add, many instructors use the opportunity to plug their books and increase book sales. Another reason is to increase the publicity and demonstrate the quality of education from professors and their Universities. Because of the massive amount of attention and reach provided by the online courses, professors can take advantage of this by learning where they can improve, spreading their knowledge and methods and by direct causality, they are followed on social media at increasing rates. (its is very obvious some professors are Universities are WAY better than others, and it is clearly obvious online.) I think that all of these intentions play off each other and assist in the motives of both sides of the demand and supply of MOOCs.