Coursera is a money losing company with a 10% y/y growth that IPOed at the top of the 2021 hype cycle. Now that the infinite money glitch is over they are in trouble, so they buy a marginally profitable company and slap Synergy and AI on it and pray to the gods of the market for more bountiful harvests of stocks issued.
Coursera used to be good, and I've found the occasional good course on Udemy, but neither are particularly great right now in my opinion. Well curated learning materials are such a unicorn.
There are plenty of good courses and many of the courses are the same that have been there for years (Medical Neuroscience is incredible), it's just behind a paywall now and you can't audit them (unless I'm retarded and missing something, which is fully possible).
They’re not trying to control your speech. They’re trying to improve your communication so your message gets across better. Unless of course your primary message is “I’m an ass and proudly anti-empathy.”
He used the word to refer to a hypothetical version of himself, one that failed to either notice or comprehend something simple. That’s the same context in which people use it as an insult against others. The only difference is that it was a self-applied insult in this case.
More importantly, the word, when used as an insult, uses real humans with real difficulties as the referent. Those people and their caregivers are the one’s that feel the insult. Whereas chimpanzee is an animal and remains unaware and unhurt when its species name is used as an insult. (My pseudonym is also not meant as a self-applied insult, most days.)
GPs usage doesn’t really matter to me though. It wasn’t an egregious thing to say. And, for me personally, the word has little value one way or another. It reminds me of grade school chatter.
I just find it comical that there’s a lack of self-awareness regarding the effect of its usage. But again, perhaps there was no lack of awareness at all and perhaps that was the real point.
> yeah you're right the guy who told me which words I shouldn't say definitely isn't trying to control my speech.
>> Please don't use ridiculous and painful slurs in a serious conversation.
"Please don't" is just a polite request, particularly when used by an anonymous and presumably powerless stranger on the internet. It's not an attempt to take control or use force. It's an attempt to get you to introspect. Don't be so sensitive :p
Yes, chimps are intelligent. Thank you for noticing.
It's been a while since I took a Coursera course but I LOVED it at the beginning. Between Machine Learning, the (numerical) optimisation courses and NAND-To-Tetris (even for the platform alone) it had so many great courses to pick from.
I did Andrew Ng's old Machine Learning, Obarsky's Scala course, the Ng's Deep Learning specialization, Nand to Tetris part 1 and a small Data Science course which wasn't very good. I think my very first course was "Model Thinking" course, but I never took the exam there.
I also tried the sequel to the Scala course at one point, and the Cryptography course, but I dropped out from those after finding out they were a bit too hard - I spent way more time on the coursework than I'd intended.
But I can't say I like the direction it's taken in recent years.
Didn’t the gamification course have one of the relatively few well done peer assessments? The course was good, but it’s interesting now that gamification features completely turn me off now on any platform or program attempting to motivate me toward a specific end, regardless of whether that goal is in my interest or the interest of someone else trying to make money.
And yeah: Gamification became shallow real fast. Even the Gamification techniques in games! I think the reason is that everyone focused on adopting the easy part (checkboxes, achievements, levels) while skipping the real core (player types, intrinsic motivation)... But the course even warned about this level of shallow implementation.
(Btw: A few months later I enrolled in a course on educational psychology on coursera that was supposed to showcase some SOTA techniques... They canceled it because they could not work out the details. I think academia is often just not good at pulling things off.)
The model thinking course was interesting but it should have had a follow up that was much more than a freshman survey course treatment of each model.
Reading online it seems like most people got the impression that it was establishing that all models are essentially useless. Instead it was showing that each of these models were an extremely efficient way to understand some dynamic situations, but that it’s still absurd to focus on only one model when trying to understand the world.
Agreed about Odersky, the Scala course and the Scala Functional Programming course were solid (the latter a bit less so, a blemish was its insistence on Akka, but the concepts were interesting).
There was also a very interesting introduction to Programming Languages (by Dan... something? He was from the University of Washington I think) which covered multiple paradigms and had interesting things to say about the ML family.
Yes, Programming Languages by Dan Grossman! The course was later split up into three parts, with each part focusing on a particular language/paradigm: SML, Racket, and Ruby. Definitely one of the higher quality offerings on Coursera.
+1 for NAND-to-Tetris. I combined it with a visual logic simulator so I could actually see the structures beyond the VHDL. I would love to go back and do Part 2.
I’ve purchased many Udemy courses over the years. The subscription plan they’ve been pushing makes no sense financially. I hope I’m wrong but I worry that eventually being a subscriber will be the only thing they offer.
Yes! I have had unfettered access to it via a couple employers and the Illusion of Choice is real. The best thing they could do (for users like me, not sure if this is true for the majority) would be to go back to being a curator of quality and not a marketplace for anyone to make a course.
>But at the same time I agree that they aren't doing enough to surface the high
> quality courses
They have forced the creators to agree on being scrapped by AI or otherwise not showing up on their own top search. Ironically this has sealed their fate, and most top creators decided to move their content somewhere else.
There was one course I did gor mongoose, muber I think it's called. I really liked it as a student because it's all very bite-sized and you could stop/start whenever. They do recaps at the beginning.
Compare that to a 6 hr video on YouTube, next day you already forgot what the timestamp was about.
In the last 3-4 years, I've mostly been using niche platforms: frontendmasters, ui.dev (fireship now?), boot.dev, codecrafters, a couple of others. And books. I always have a Manning subscription running.
I've mostly focused on job-relevant upskilling. If I wanted to learn something outside my immediate area, in a university-course-like experience, I'd probably go back to coursera.
Coursera used to have good quality courseware, now I get better stuff via a simple search on youtube.
Youtube killed these two companies, well Udemy was garbage from the get go.
I hope that the shitty login from Coursera is not in the future used on Udemy. It is the reason, why I am no longer using Coursera, despite in the past having finished 2 MOOCs with certificates there. Recently, I logged in at Udemy without issues and started a course there. Except for the DRM crap for some of the videos, that I need to watch in another browser, since I don't want to enable DRM crap in my main browser, all seems to work well.
How valid are these certificates in the real world? Does anyone get benefitted by having them? I have always used these sites as a quick one off concept check. That was before llms, and I don’t have a use for these sites for my use case. So I don’t have any understanding of how valid they are in general
I've used both platforms regularly over the years, and I have mixed feelings about both. I mean they both have some truly excellent content, but so much utter trash. There should be some kind of quality control.
They make it reaaaaally hard to find the good stuff. Many courses are time sensitive (e.g. there's no point in learning a 20 year old version of PHP), but they frequently lie about when a course was created which makes it impossible to filter out old stuff.
There are so many courses that could benefit from more interactive tests/quizzes, but it's usually limited to solving a few ridiculously simple multiple choice questions. I'm not sure if that's a platform limitation or a course creator limitation.
So much of the content is extremely stale, and it even matters for languages that you would think are relatively unchanging.
It seems like they must have put almost no incentives in place for the instructors. Setting up a course must take even more effort than running a full semester course in their own school, but since no one is making new versions Coursera must not be paying them like it, or offering equity in the platform. I imagine that teaching students in person is also a lot more rewarding,
I haven’t taken any recent online courses, but EdX looked like it might still be good.
We have free coursera at work. But I really hate it because it enforces random deadlines on you. Even though the courses are completely prerecorded and absolutely don't need any kind of deadlines. I just want to study at my own pace.
If they don't force it people won't complete the course. While that at first sounds good - they collect money - long term people who complete courses are your best marketing as they tell others and so completion is importation and thus the deadlines.
Though how much force is best is subject to debate.
> long term people who complete courses are your best marketing as they tell others and so completion is importation and thus the deadlines
I don't see why completing courses is a customer satisfaction criterion. I've had many courses that I didn't complete, yet I was quite satisfied with the content and could recommend it to friends.
On the other hand it puts me off. I'd never pay for this myself as it is.
Either way I kinda hate the 'course' format to learn stuff. I don't have the patience for it. Usually the official documentation teaches the same but in much more condensed format so I can absorb it much quicker. Because online trainings are always paced so the slowest participant can keep up and that's agonising when you have a 140+ IQ and ADHD.
I'd rather hyperfocus and learn everything in half a day. I've always done it like that and I'm a deep expert. PS not trying to brag here, these things are both a blessing and a curse.
But my work paid a lot for Coursera so they're always pushing people to use it :(
Coursera used to be great, the value was unparalleled. Great specializations too; I learned Python and data science techniques through the platform during the COVID pandemic.
Lately though they've been pushing for courses to have AI dialogue modules, where an AI agent asks you questions about the content. These modules are absolute slop garbage, often asking repetitive questions that have no grounding in actual course content. I got sick of this and dropped my subscription about a month ago.
If you click the link to those original free courses, you get
403 Forbidden
Don't know what it means, but Coursera made me sad a long time ago when it locked up all its value behind a paywall while getting rid of human interaction.
Nobody cares how much learning you did but how hard it was to get into the university you got your piece of paper from. Coding bootcamps eventually figured this out so they started to have selective admissions. Universities like Harvard have rampant grade inflation and you have to try to fail out of yet still have prestige due to selective admissions.
The most annoying things for me about Coursera et al is that they aren't about education they are about job training. UC Berkeley (before that terrible law suit made them delete) had the best library of courses. Canvas et all has made it harder to get course materials, since everything is behind a paywall. Sometimes I want to learn some programming, but also I want to learn more math, history, philosophy, theology, literature, etc. and those non-job related subjects are largely missing from MOOCS.
And, real talk, if you find somebody referring to himself as retarded painful, you should stay off the internet.
Maybe just grow up and stop being a terminally online social justice warrior?
Just like your chimpanzee usage likely isn't meant as a slur, despite it being constantly used as one.
More importantly, the word, when used as an insult, uses real humans with real difficulties as the referent. Those people and their caregivers are the one’s that feel the insult. Whereas chimpanzee is an animal and remains unaware and unhurt when its species name is used as an insult. (My pseudonym is also not meant as a self-applied insult, most days.)
GPs usage doesn’t really matter to me though. It wasn’t an egregious thing to say. And, for me personally, the word has little value one way or another. It reminds me of grade school chatter.
I just find it comical that there’s a lack of self-awareness regarding the effect of its usage. But again, perhaps there was no lack of awareness at all and perhaps that was the real point.
Anyways, ta ta.
yeah you're right the guy who told me which words I shouldn't say definitely isn't trying to control my speech.
Chimps are actually quite intelligent, btw. Do better.
>> Please don't use ridiculous and painful slurs in a serious conversation.
"Please don't" is just a polite request, particularly when used by an anonymous and presumably powerless stranger on the internet. It's not an attempt to take control or use force. It's an attempt to get you to introspect. Don't be so sensitive :p
Yes, chimps are intelligent. Thank you for noticing.
At least you’re self-aware about this.
See ya around, bud.
I also tried the sequel to the Scala course at one point, and the Cryptography course, but I dropped out from those after finding out they were a bit too hard - I spent way more time on the coursework than I'd intended.
But I can't say I like the direction it's taken in recent years.
"Model Thinking" was great!
And I really liked the gamification course by Kevin Werbach (The topic was still hot back then) - something I used extensively at my start up.
And yeah: Gamification became shallow real fast. Even the Gamification techniques in games! I think the reason is that everyone focused on adopting the easy part (checkboxes, achievements, levels) while skipping the real core (player types, intrinsic motivation)... But the course even warned about this level of shallow implementation.
(Btw: A few months later I enrolled in a course on educational psychology on coursera that was supposed to showcase some SOTA techniques... They canceled it because they could not work out the details. I think academia is often just not good at pulling things off.)
Reading online it seems like most people got the impression that it was establishing that all models are essentially useless. Instead it was showing that each of these models were an extremely efficient way to understand some dynamic situations, but that it’s still absurd to focus on only one model when trying to understand the world.
There was also a very interesting introduction to Programming Languages (by Dan... something? He was from the University of Washington I think) which covered multiple paradigms and had interesting things to say about the ML family.
But at the same time I agree that they aren't doing enough to surface the high quality courses
They have forced the creators to agree on being scrapped by AI or otherwise not showing up on their own top search. Ironically this has sealed their fate, and most top creators decided to move their content somewhere else.
Compare that to a 6 hr video on YouTube, next day you already forgot what the timestamp was about.
I enjoyed a course I took last summer on EdX; not a super polished experience, but the content was good and the projects were challenging.
I’ve enjoyed pluralsight in the past, but it is hit or miss whether it will have content you’re interested in.
I’m on mathacademy but that is text only and a very focused niche.
What’s the hip/trendy mooc these days? Who will eat courserudemy’s lunch?
I've mostly focused on job-relevant upskilling. If I wanted to learn something outside my immediate area, in a university-course-like experience, I'd probably go back to coursera.
Udemy has almost the opposite.
Hopefully, this is handled well.
Coursera had ...
> Hopefully, this is handled well.
Indeed, Coursera will be fast learning best practices from Udemy.
There is the occasional gem but you better be ready to diggy diggy hole to find them.
Outside of some very rare outlier cases, 0%.
The value is the potential knowledge you gained helping you to jumpstart other things. Employers don't value them at all.
But one of the professors on the admissions board was a friend of the professor who ran the Coursera course so they had a lot more trust in it.
So on day 1 they can deliver humongous amount of garbage, imagine what they can do on next day.
It isn't about competition, but rather getting market dominance early. =3
So to add Udemy's infinite catalogue of poorly structured courses, it only adds to the decline
They make it reaaaaally hard to find the good stuff. Many courses are time sensitive (e.g. there's no point in learning a 20 year old version of PHP), but they frequently lie about when a course was created which makes it impossible to filter out old stuff.
There are so many courses that could benefit from more interactive tests/quizzes, but it's usually limited to solving a few ridiculously simple multiple choice questions. I'm not sure if that's a platform limitation or a course creator limitation.
It seems like they must have put almost no incentives in place for the instructors. Setting up a course must take even more effort than running a full semester course in their own school, but since no one is making new versions Coursera must not be paying them like it, or offering equity in the platform. I imagine that teaching students in person is also a lot more rewarding,
I haven’t taken any recent online courses, but EdX looked like it might still be good.
I also hate all the gamification.
Though how much force is best is subject to debate.
I don't see why completing courses is a customer satisfaction criterion. I've had many courses that I didn't complete, yet I was quite satisfied with the content and could recommend it to friends.
Either way I kinda hate the 'course' format to learn stuff. I don't have the patience for it. Usually the official documentation teaches the same but in much more condensed format so I can absorb it much quicker. Because online trainings are always paced so the slowest participant can keep up and that's agonising when you have a 140+ IQ and ADHD.
I'd rather hyperfocus and learn everything in half a day. I've always done it like that and I'm a deep expert. PS not trying to brag here, these things are both a blessing and a curse.
But my work paid a lot for Coursera so they're always pushing people to use it :(
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3119959
If you click the link to those original free courses, you get
Don't know what it means, but Coursera made me sad a long time ago when it locked up all its value behind a paywall while getting rid of human interaction.I have access via my employer and mostly they were never that different from other places like Pluralsight.
EDIT: typo, most => that
I would love to hear insights into what has gone wrong, or what are the lessons learnt.