Correction appended
The University has been toying with the idea of offering free online education in the form of massive open online courses for months.
Administrators told The Hatchet in February that they had no plans to offer MOOCs. In July, GW was considering it.
Still, Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning Stephen Ehrmann recently told me “there has been no decision about whether or not to offer MOOCs.”
Why the hesitation?
Ehrmann said the University would not develop MOOCs until it could identify specific fields in which the University could lead and find faculty who were interested in offering their time.
But the University is looking at the prospect of MOOCs from the wrong perspective. Administrators should consider how these courses could boost the University's prestige. Like GW’s new rebranding campaign, MOOCs are an investment that can change the perception of the University. The difference, of course, is MOOCs would not receive the flack that the expensive rebranding campaign has.
Stanford professors launched Coursera in April 2012, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University founded edX in May 2012. Since then, 16 other universities have followed in their footsteps and joined online platforms.
Institutions like the University of Virginia and the University of Washington have pursued online education, because they feel their brands have benefited simply by being associated with schools like Harvard and MIT. And by investing in MOOCs, GW could also ride on those Ivy League coattails.
On Coursera alone, more than 1 million users would see GW’s name alongside these other institutions. This would give GW exposure to a huge number of people who might not have otherwise heard of GW.
Ehrmann told me he doubted GW’s image would be affected if it were put on the same online platform with these elite universities.
But the University of Washington’s experience with MOOCs suggests otherwise.
The school, which has an endowment of $2.15 billion, slightly above GW's $1.3 billion, has added online offerings through Coursera in addition to its 17 degree and 38 certificate programs taught online.
David Szatmary, the school’s vice provost of educational outreach, said that the university added online education through Coursera to strengthen its reputation as an innovator in higher education.
And universities with even larger endowments, like UVA, also attest to the benefits to their schools' brands as a result of adding online education.
UVA has released four online courses in the past two months. UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan told UVA Today that increasing online education would enhance its brand and give more students access to an education.
Coursera would be the place for GW to begin. Sixteen universities are already listed on the site, and as others follow suit, GW will lose the opportunity to become an MOOC front-runner.
Online education could provide a global platform.
Jacob Garber, a sophomore majoring in English, is a Hatchet columnist.
This column was updated Sept. 10, 2012 to reflect the following:
The Hatchet incorrectly reported that the University of Washington added 17 degree and 38 online certificate programs through Coursera. In fact, those courses were already offered online through the school, and the Coursera offerings were in addition to those classes
in gw dictionary, free education no exist
Whether or not MOOCs increase prestige is up for debate, but more than that I don’t think they would address any issues that GW is currently trying to alleviate. Brand exposure is great, and that is definitely the direction the new brand is probably going for, but I stand with the University in their decision not to jump into Coursera or EdX right now. If online courses are going to happen they should be done properly and should be the move towards alleviating the space/enrollment cap issue on campus…not giving things away for free (that underpaid adjunct/assistant professors are probably not willing to do, despite the exposure)
Offering courses online and doing it properly isn’t just about recording lectures – there is an entire instructional redesign involved in that process, developing or modifying a curriculum to effectively teach students and take advantage of the online/virtual environment. I don’t think MOOCs can offer that, nor would they be representative of the rich educational experience GW (or other schools) can offer students – which is definitely not the kind of brand exposure we need.
Prestige. That’s what GW needs. Prestige. Not more financial aid. Not sustainable working conditions for employees. Not a rehauling of plans for campus expansion. Not higher salaries for adjuncts. Not more funding devoted to the sexual assault crisis team. Not a more diverse campus. Not a president who’s salary isn’t out-of-control. Not an affordable and healthy student meal plan.
No, GW needs prestige. Gimme prestige. I want prestige.
Impressive information, i do not know this type of information ever before,really thanks for this…..