Imagine 100 randomly selected people.
50 are put in a University Shakespeare class. Attendance marked, reading assigned, reports written, grades given.
The other 50 were given the same amount of time to explore Shakespeare on their own.
Who do you honestly think learns more?
50 are put in a University Shakespeare class. Attendance marked, reading assigned, reports written, grades given.
The other 50 were given the same amount of time to explore Shakespeare on their own.
Who do you honestly think learns more?
So what is making the student successful in the University? Everyone says, "The content! The professor!"
Take that same content, deliver it to the 50 self-studiers in the form of a MOOC. Some will succeed.
On average, however, performance of a class will *destroy* self-learners
Take that same content, deliver it to the 50 self-studiers in the form of a MOOC. Some will succeed.
On average, however, performance of a class will *destroy* self-learners
So what if, and hear me out on this, the most important aspect of an education for the majority of people isn't actually the *content* itself (though that certainly matters), but scheduling, artificial discipline, making up for where the average human is broken and/or lazy?
If that's the case, it means two things:
1. By learning self discipline and finding the right content you can free yourself from the need of an expensive classroom
2. Self-learning being available will be wildly helpful to a few people, but not very helpful to most
1. By learning self discipline and finding the right content you can free yourself from the need of an expensive classroom
2. Self-learning being available will be wildly helpful to a few people, but not very helpful to most
