Most of the articles described MOOCs and or internet courses in the context higher education as a whole. Yet, is there not an inherent difference between teaching, for example, a beginner’s (Core) class in math, philosophy and advanced biology? Why can we not teach the simpler and more test based classes online and more discussion based classes traditionally?

Kirchner’s described the value of American college degrees to be falling in world rankings? Then what are other countries’ higher education systems doing better?

Though it would  seem ideal for a university to focus solely teaching its students, it does not take a great amount of cynicism to argue that that is not possible or even desirable. Higher education is also the scene of networking, cultural enrichment and possibly even a right of passage. Online teaching can ever really get to that level. For at least these reasons, higher education in the traditional form is probably here to stay. So what is all the hype about?

Is a professor teaching a free MOOC really different for a religious figure or mass entertainer? The professor spreads knowledge (it is hoped) to a mass audience that he cannot physically connect on a person to person level. In the end, the audience may better understand the workings of the human body or the context of the Peloponnesian War but with the vast majority not finishing the course (and those finishing generally not getting academic credit) how is this really different from achieving enlightenment or enjoying good music?

The Economist study noted that many people in the private sector felt that the quality of higher education was sliding. Could this simply be the case because they are hiring more people in for jobs that require a certain intelligence and technological experience (due to massification and changing employment patterns)? Is there a limit to what mass education can do, due to overall intelligence level of a population?