Maybe I expect less
from the Chronicle of Higher Education, or perhaps I read all of the articles contained in there current issue on OCW at once—including the really nice profiles of those who benefit from it—but I didn’t have as negative a response as Stephen Downes to the lead piece. True, Utah Sate University has been mothballed, users would like accreditation and there are always those who will dis the quality of a free offering, but I think the real story here is that there 250+ other projects that have kept going in spite of the terrible economic circumstances, and they must be carrying on for a reason. Absent in the article is the question of what benefits the schools receive for their investment, which I think the Chronicle should explore. It doen’t have the sensationality of the doom and gloom predictions, but it is probably the most interesting question to be asked. Also interesting that buried in the report about the cost is the information that the second-largest OCW in the US costs only $120K a year to operate. Maybe not so costly after all.