Comments on: MIT OCW Funding Analysis (and Implications) http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173 pragmatism over zeal Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:11:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: leighblackall http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44701 leighblackall Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:02:11 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44701 Chuck it up on wikiversity, archive, and multi versions of media elsewhere. Its Backup time (if only they'd thought more laterally or used a different license). Chuck it up on wikiversity, archive, and multi versions of media elsewhere. Its Backup time (if only they’d thought more laterally or used a different license).

]]> By: Better math « OpenFiction [Blog] http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44698 Better math « OpenFiction [Blog] Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:29:56 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44698 [...] OpenCourseWare, sustainability by scarsonmsm on December 10, 2009 Cross-posting my response to David Wiley’s recent struggles with math on iterating toward openness: I appreciate you ringing the alarm bells for us, but the math [...] [...] OpenCourseWare, sustainability by scarsonmsm on December 10, 2009 Cross-posting my response to David Wiley’s recent struggles with math on iterating toward openness: I appreciate you ringing the alarm bells for us, but the math [...]

]]> By: Steve Carson http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44697 Steve Carson Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:21:15 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44697 I appreciate you ringing the alarm bells for us, but the math you've applied to the Tech article numbers is way off, and I'd hate for the OER community to walk away with the wrong impression. MIT has over time assumed a greater and greater percentage of the cost of OCW, so while historically the grant support is 72% (which includes a major corporate gift as well), it currently covers just south of 40% of our expenses. We have reserves to cover this part of our budget for FY10-12 as well. And while we have been ramping up our visitor donation campaigns (2 per year + an end of year ask) and visitor donations will be an important part of our sustainability (as they are with other big OER such as Wikipedia), we are certainly not banking on that as the only revenue. If you want to read a better account of MIT OpenCourseWare's sustainability picture, I suggest http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/221/d%27oliveira_lerman.html I appreciate you ringing the alarm bells for us, but the math you’ve applied to the Tech article numbers is way off, and I’d hate for the OER community to walk away with the wrong impression. MIT has over time assumed a greater and greater percentage of the cost of OCW, so while historically the grant support is 72% (which includes a major corporate gift as well), it currently covers just south of 40% of our expenses. We have reserves to cover this part of our budget for FY10-12 as well. And while we have been ramping up our visitor donation campaigns (2 per year + an end of year ask) and visitor donations will be an important part of our sustainability (as they are with other big OER such as Wikipedia), we are certainly not banking on that as the only revenue. If you want to read a better account of MIT OpenCourseWare’s sustainability picture, I suggest http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/221/d%27oliveira_lerman.html

]]> By: Ryan Normandin http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44692 Ryan Normandin Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:25:47 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44692 Hello, I am Ryan Normandin, the author of the cited article. In case you all would like to see the primary source, most of my information came from these two sites: http://www.jocw.jp/OCWHistory.htm and page 14 of http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/221/fnl221.pdf These two pages contain much more information regarding OCW's past, present, and future. I'm always excited when I see that one of my articles sparks conversation! Hello, I am Ryan Normandin, the author of the cited article. In case you all would like to see the primary source, most of my information came from these two sites: http://www.jocw.jp/OCWHistory.htm and page 14 of http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/221/fnl221.pdf These two pages contain much more information regarding OCW’s past, present, and future. I’m always excited when I see that one of my articles sparks conversation!

]]> By: Marion Jensen http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44683 Marion Jensen Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:33:40 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44683 MIT has a couple of things working against it. First, they started with a lot of money. When you have a lot, you tend to do a lot. And so to sustain their program, they have to continue to find a lot of money. Compare that to a school that starts small, and finds their own money. They may not be able to build as fast as MIT, but in the long run they will be able to sustain their program. I think USU suffered with this, to a smaller degree. USU didn't need much every year, and had we gone after the recurring money early on, we would have weathered the downturn in the economy. Instead we relied on grant money, and when it went away, so did we. Second, MIT has a brand they have to worry about. Smaller schools can get away with selling certificates or enrolling more people in their distance education program. I don't know if this is a solution MIT can do without diluting their brand. MIT has a couple of things working against it. First, they started with a lot of money. When you have a lot, you tend to do a lot. And so to sustain their program, they have to continue to find a lot of money. Compare that to a school that starts small, and finds their own money. They may not be able to build as fast as MIT, but in the long run they will be able to sustain their program. I think USU suffered with this, to a smaller degree. USU didn’t need much every year, and had we gone after the recurring money early on, we would have weathered the downturn in the economy. Instead we relied on grant money, and when it went away, so did we.

Second, MIT has a brand they have to worry about. Smaller schools can get away with selling certificates or enrolling more people in their distance education program. I don’t know if this is a solution MIT can do without diluting their brand.

]]> By: Mary McEwen http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44680 Mary McEwen Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:45:42 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44680 PS I made the mistake of enclosing the URLs in angle brackets. Normandin's post is http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N59/normandin.html Terris' post is http://chronicle.com/blogPost/MIT-Uses-Social-Networking-to/9105/ PS I made the mistake of enclosing the URLs in angle brackets.

Normandin’s post is http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N59/normandin.html

Terris’ post is http://chronicle.com/blogPost/MIT-Uses-Social-Networking-to/9105/

]]> By: Mary McEwen http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44679 Mary McEwen Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:42:45 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44679 How interesting that Normandin's post: ) from "The Tech" is posted only one day later than Terris' post: from "The Chronicle". Both involve MIT groups. Why can't the approach (or the essence of it) from Terris' post be used to solve the funding problem in Normandin's (and your) post? What made the solution in Terris' post (also see hyperlinks referenced in his post) so efficient and (relatively) inexpensive considering resources used? I think the answer to this question is a key part (if not THE answer) to OER funding. Can we get these groups talking to each other? :-) The following are some quotes from a DARPA employee (DARPA is the organization that funded the contest referenced Terris' post). <i> “They got a huge amount of participation from shockingly little money,” said Peter Lee, a DARPA project manager who was one of the organizers of the Network Challenge. ... He said while they were planning the event the DARPA scientists had wondered about the relative effectiveness of different motives ranging from profit to working for the common good. “In the final results <b> all of the motives seemed to be effective </b>,” he said. The researchers said their technique could be used for many things, including finding criminals and missing children and halting impending terrorist attacks. </i> So why not use "their technique" in funding/developing Open Education? After all, a small change of focus from "i" to "u" turns "finding" into "funding". And most of the work in "funding" is "finding" it! Then, isn't it possible that Open Education could become a major factor in solutions to the other problems referenced above? -Mary How interesting that Normandin’s post:
) from “The Tech” is posted only one day later than Terris’ post:
from “The Chronicle”. Both involve MIT groups. Why can’t the approach (or the essence of it) from Terris’ post be used to solve the funding problem in Normandin’s (and your) post?

What made the solution in Terris’ post (also see hyperlinks referenced in his post) so efficient and (relatively) inexpensive considering resources used? I think the answer to this question is a key part (if not THE answer) to OER funding. Can we get these groups talking to each other? :-)

The following are some quotes from a DARPA employee (DARPA is the organization that funded the contest referenced Terris’ post).

“They got a huge amount of participation from shockingly little money,” said Peter Lee, a DARPA project manager who was one of the organizers of the Network Challenge.
…
He said while they were planning the event the DARPA scientists had wondered about the relative effectiveness of different motives ranging from profit to working for the common good.

“In the final results all of the motives seemed to be effective ,” he said.

The researchers said their technique could be used for many things, including finding criminals and missing children and halting impending terrorist attacks.

So why not use “their technique” in funding/developing Open Education? After all, a small change of focus from “i” to “u” turns “finding” into “funding”. And most of the work in “funding” is “finding” it! Then, isn’t it possible that Open Education could become a major factor in solutions to the other problems referenced above?

-Mary

]]> By: Sustainability For MIT OCW? « http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44678 Sustainability For MIT OCW? « Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:26:26 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44678 [...] Commentary by David Wiley. [...] [...] Commentary by David Wiley. [...]

]]> By: Mark Horner http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1173/comment-page-1#comment-44676 Mark Horner Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:52:29 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=1173#comment-44676 Hi David The thing that I'm wondering about is how much duplication in fixed cost there is across all the different OCW-type / OER sites? If everyone where hosted on the same hardware (branding can still happen) what would the total saving be? A little bit of consolidation in the OER world might really help improve a couple of platform solutions significantly and reduce the overall expenditure (certainly on hardware and sys-admins). I was pinged a quote recently which implied that WikiEducator will use Connexions for hosting their static courses while doing their editing on their own wiki. Seems like two platforms are being used where only one is necessary, especially seeing as the one has a subset of the functionality of the other in this case. Every project is allowed to do their own thing, but at some point OERs need to front up and make an impact and if they can't because they've squandered the financial goodwill building hundreds of different solutions that do 70% of the job it will be really sad. I'm not advocating one global OER solution but maintaining some sites with a critical mass of content might require some consolidation rather than everyone wanting their own hacked media-wiki / plone install :) Sorry - that turned into a bit of a rant. Mark Hi David

The thing that I’m wondering about is how much duplication in fixed cost there is across all the different OCW-type / OER sites? If everyone where hosted on the same hardware (branding can still happen) what would the total saving be?

A little bit of consolidation in the OER world might really help improve a couple of platform solutions significantly and reduce the overall expenditure (certainly on hardware and sys-admins).

I was pinged a quote recently which implied that WikiEducator will use Connexions for hosting their static courses while doing their editing on their own wiki. Seems like two platforms are being used where only one is necessary, especially seeing as the one has a subset of the functionality of the other in this case.

Every project is allowed to do their own thing, but at some point OERs need to front up and make an impact and if they can’t because they’ve squandered the financial goodwill building hundreds of different solutions that do 70% of the job it will be really sad.

I’m not advocating one global OER solution but maintaining some sites with a critical mass of content might require some consolidation rather than everyone wanting their own hacked media-wiki / plone install :)

Sorry – that turned into a bit of a rant.

Mark

]]>