On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Talking about access to higher education allows MOOC providers like > Coursera to avoid discussing the effect their services will have on > people who work in higher education now. Professors, believe it or > not, are people, too. They have families and health problems and > student loans of their own. Moreover, three-quarters of American > college instructors work on a contingent basis, for a median income of > $2,700 per course, often without benefits of any kind. Since these > faculty members also have no chance at tenure, these adjunct faculty > members would be by far the easiest professors to replace with MOOCs. > The good argument against MOOCs: they are nice resources to make available to the world (like Wikipedia), but only rich assholes from Wall St think they are a good substitute for a real college education - much less a real college *experience* of the kind that said rich assholes from Wall St want for their own children. The bad argument against MOOCs: they "affect the terms and conditions of employment" of tenured college professors. The ugly argument against MOOCs: tenured college professors pretending to care about how they will affect the livelihoods of their adjunct colleagues. Tenured college professors like Jonathan Rees are privileged members of a labor aristocracy that has never given any indication that they give a shit about the livelihoods of anyone other than themselves. Rees should stick to the good arguments against MOOCs that an average member of the public can be expected to have some sympathy for. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
