I think you bring up an excellent point about the future of academe and if I were university administrators, I'd be worried.

Is MIT just reduced to a brand name? Maybe not. I think part of the educational experience is the interactions with faculty and peers. I think of the case method I use in some courses and how knowledge is derived through discussion, as well as incorporation of recent, real-world events in discussions.

I also like the idea of lectures online (in theory) in order to address issues of transparency. In a Web 2.0 world, a "review" on ratemyprofessor could be linked to video lectures. I aspire to this. Just kidding (for any and all prospective future clients/employers).

I'm also wondering if a freelance model of academe could develop, in terms of both research and teaching. I can see the web as facilitating the market development of this. I see the current model as having too much "lock-in."

I think academics already tend to be underpaid relative to the amount of education/knowledge they have. That is, non-monetary incentives probably play a big part in such a career choice. Though, insofar as salaries are linked to a demand for knowledge, free access to this knowledge might be financially bad for universities (and thus for professors).

“If I can get MIT lectures for free, what the point of MIT? “

I agree with what Dr. Kambara said. Also, one might cynically suggest that most students are more interested in a degree than an education. (Mark Twain made a distinction between “schooling” and “education”.) They want the university to certify their competence in a disciple and teach them enough to land a good job. To borrow an IT concept, MIT is a “trusted issuer.”

“Is academia facing the same dilemmas the music industry faces? Will it need to create a new business model to survive?”

The value of an MP3 is its data content. If an MP3 costs $1.29 while you can get the exact same file freely and more conveniently through bittorrent, it creates problems. I think a lot factors create value when it comes to an education.

“Will the norm of putting public lectures on-line raise the bar so that all faculty have to bring their “A” game at all times (shudder)?”

Be afraid of remixes and sound bytes. Be very afraid. *Evil grin* The retired judge who was recently a guest speaker made a good point about this – people act differently around cameras. If cameras change courtroom dynamics, they probably change classroom dynamics.

Your concern here figures into a larger 21st century concern: is ephemeral communication dead? People seem to be increasingly recording and publishing, well, everything. Just think, any one of your students could be covertly recording or even filming anything you say, at any time. Those innocuous smart phones lying on the desks? Everything a student needs to record and publish to Youtube in one convenient and ubiquitous package. (This is one reason why privacy advocates often argue that cell phone cameras should make audible sounds while recording or that laptop webcams should have built in shutters.)

I agree with the comment above, about how people act differently around cameras--as evidenced by a certain sensationalism which has emerged since the inception of television (e.g. in Congressional hearings). Of course, that's a different realm than academia, but its worth contemplating how rhetorical norms for teaching are reconstructed with the broadcast of academia.

Jose's general post reminded me of the fact that I never give my students access to my class PowerPoints (when I use them, because let's face it, this format often has no power and little point). If I put everything up online, there is less incentive to participate in the academic experience of class, and also less surprise at what's ahead (Erving Goffman and many others said suspense was one of the biggest keys to communication, I tend to agree). Broadcast lectures are not as intimate as the classroom experience, so while I'm all for sharing knowledge for public intellectualism's sake, we have to be careful about going beyond at least some threshold in releasing our material, which can simply undermine the experience of engagement in a room together. Much of the emerging literature on in-class versus online learning appears to confirm that online is good, but as anticiated, no substitute for the offline experience.

On a slightly related note, this also reminds me of comedian Eddie Izzard's comment that he's become very protective of putting his comedy material on DVD--after all, each time he does so, he's basically lost an hour of content that could be performed at clubs all over the world.

I do not believe that access to increased knowledge cheapens it in any way. This would assume that knowledge is supposed to be limited to a select few and that ubiquitous access somehow devalues it. If anything, it is of more value now because it can be found, understood, and improved upon by more people. On the other hand, it is an interesting question if there will be a disincentive to acquire the knowledge. I believe it is true that you always want what you don’t have; I can see how access to all information possible (ideally) could dim the passion for learning. After all, isn't part of the fun going out and getting it yourself? I know I am always more excited about a topic if it is something I had not heard of before because access to it was somehow limited. However, the need for MIT will not go away. Even if people go through every lecture and learn all the material perfectly, there is nothing tangible to prove this. You need MIT to get that piece of paper that says you went to MIT. Going to MIT through the internet is not something you can put on your resume. Personally, I have visited MIT OpenCourseWare in the past and other similar websites, and I have learned a lot of useful information. It has only supplemented my education by introducing me to a new topic or helping me when I get stuck. Universally accessible information will not replace college or do anything similar; it will only let those who have no other access obtain information about anything they want and it will add to the education that other students are getting. Lastly, I agree that it will be a way of increased competition among universities; you don't have to go there to see what a lecture is like and it will make it easier for students and information-thirsty individuals to reach their goals.

I don't think that this idea of broadcasting MIT and other university lectures is a bad thing or that it cheapens knowledge for the simple fact that not everyone can afford the MIT education. This allows people who may not have access to MIT resources to learn and to hear from a different perspective then where they go to if in school at all. So this is a good thing it allows a more free flowing of ideas and is not segregated to only those that can afford to go to such prestigious institutions such as MIT.

Broadcasting lectures and other forms of "free" knowledge does not cheapen knowledge. I feel as though it widens the ability of the public to engage in extracurricular enrichment. How is this bad?? I feel as though the crowd of people who will use this service- are not a crowd who will necessarily "cheapen" knowledge but expand it. It is a great supplement, and is not there to take the place if the real learning-lecture experience. This would also allow non-experts to get out of their comfort zone and learn something outside of their area of expertise.

Knowledge doesn't have a physical value so how do we measure the non-tangble? We can argue all day about how a degree (tangible piece of paper) from somewhere like MIT will get you a better job and gives your employer credibility that you're a smart person but really it is in no way a true measurement of knowledge. I could create a fake degree and be judged as further in society than the guy who worked his butt off for one... whats the difference if nobody knows what I did?

I see lectures going online as a good and useful thing that will only further society but I do agree that this will completely change how we judges others knowledge. No longer will a degree and grades be good enough to account for amounts of knowledge and understanding in an individuals brain. It's about time we rethink and modernize how we judge others knowledge or expertise in different areas.

I agree with the fact that there is no substitute for offline learning but that I believe this is because of the personal experience and the persuasiveness of a person when they are in your presence. Not to mention the setting of knowledge centers such as universities network knowledge and ideas and opportunities better than almost any place for growing minds. I think if we find a new way to measure knowledge, then the measurement of knowledge in an academic setting such as CLU would become more valuable because of the tangibles that came with the learning. But unfortunatly knowledge doesn't have a physical value, so how will we best measure the non-tangible?

As stated above knowledge is not physical so therefore cannot be cheapened. What is cheapened is the prestige and lour that these institutions have. No, a MIT, Harvard, or Yale education might not be that different then the education at some state schools. Yes, those educations can come at a pretty good size pot of gold, but you are not paying just for the knowledge, but also the professors, the connections, and most importantly the name of the school. Right now in our time the name on the paper of your degree can have a lot of meaning if from a prestige school, even though your education has been the same.
This brings me to a very big question. In 10, 20, or 30 years will those schools have the same prestige? Will their degrees mean that something extra anymore if we have all had access to the same lectures and education? Maybe this in time will be the answer to making a college education more affordable for everyone. Will the internet lead us to a utopian like college education? I guess only time will give answers to these questions.
Education can never be cheapened in value. Such things as these lectures being posted can only benefit those who are not able to attend college for whatever reason that may be. They could also help someone learn something they weren’t getting from their professor. The possibilities are endless and yet to be seen.

You can't but a price on knowledge. Universities do because they are selling it to us in the form of a diploma. The fact that it is all available for free online could potentially lead our society to become more educated. But will this education be considered equivalent to someone who has just graduated out of college? I don't think so. These lectures will become common knowledge so I do believe that it can potentially pressure faculty to raise the bar. Not only will they feel pressured to find something more academically challenging, but their presence in the classroom will be observed by millions of people online.
If this trend continues, anyone will be able to access lectures from any type of university but they will not get the diploma out of it. When one is going up for an interview, one will have a diploma and another will have the knowledge from YouTube. Which will get the job? Perhaps the person that learned online has been out in the world putting the knowledge to use while the other spent time in the classroom. I do believe that institutions will have to rethink the system and create new incentives for students to want to pay thousands of dollars to sit in a classroom when they could receive the same knowledge from the most prestigious schools for free online.

Education is defined as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge. The means to which one achieves this knowledge has traditionally only been given merit when said acquisition occurs within an institution. I personally derive more satisfaction from entering a classroom and sitting at a desk, and believe that there is more to be gained from interactions with your faculty and your peers. Attending class requires effort and, if you wish to gain something from it, a degree of reflection. Online lectures are available at all times, simply a click away, and you get to decide when and how much to engage. Having said that, I believe that online lectures from tier one schools allow for a more level playing field for today’s youth. For years there has been a stigma on the ivy league schools – only rich and privileged need apply. Cyber edification is a great adjunct, but computer keys can never replace chalkboards (or to stick with the modern age, dry erase boards).

No I don't think it cheapens the value of elite University education by broadcasting lectures online. I think a significant part of the learning process is achieved through interaction with other students and professor. Now obviously some university could use MIT videos in class, and that in part may be a step towards enhancing of that universities education. I actually think if the videos that are posted are impressive enough, they may attract more students to their university. Likewise if they are lackluster and comparable (or not) to what a student has already been accustomed to than that could have the opposite effect.

Lectures are an interesting thing; yes, sitting in a classroom and listening to a professor drone on and staring at my computer listening to a professor drone on are, in my opinion, pretty much the same thing. And that part of academia has its value, I like listening to university lectures but the reason I go to this university is for the experience of being able to talk to the professor, and to get the lecture tailored around me. Whenever I ask a question, I can guide the lecture in an entirely different direction. The educational experience at a university is vastly different than the experience on the computer. If you just want an AA in management to get a leg up in your office, then Devry will work fine. But if you want a true liberal arts education and be a well-rounded student, you need classes that you can tailor around your needs.