On our University of Michigan School of Information faculty mailing list someone said they heard the statement that MOOCs may lead to the end of the notion of Professor in 20 years and wondered if the statement was true. The setup was so delightful that I took the bait. Here is a reworded version of my answer.

The statement made by your colleague is pretty typical of someone primary input material is articles in the news media. The reality is much more subtle.

So far there are four kinds of educational experiences that are often labeled as “MOOCs”.

(1) The original massive free course with tens to hundreds of thousands of students that take a “course” for free or perhaps get a verified certificate of completion for about $50.00. These MOOCs do not confer college credit and while they are great learning experiences for motivated learners, because students only pay if they finished and liked the course – the rigor and pace of these large MOOCs is lower than for a typical on-campus course to maintain student engagement to the end of the courses. These MOOCs are not a substitute for college – but they are great preparation for someone coming back to college, exploring a new topic area, or learning for enrichment.

(2) There is another “form” where a set of MOOCs (1) are bundled into a “Specialization” where an overall certificate is awarded in a topic area like “Data Science” from Johns Hopkins. These about $1000 to complete. There scope is generally smaller than what we would call a minor on campus – they are focused on a single topic and deliver a coordinated set of essential classes to advance knowledge on that topic. These are becoming quite popular with people that already have one or more degrees and want a tangible credential to help them move into a new line of work.

(3) The “MOOC Degrees” – like the Masters In Computer Science from Georgia Tech and the recently announced iMBA from University of Illinois. These award real credit at a discounted rate and award a real degree at the end of the program of study. Some have complained that there is no indication whether the degree is awarded as the on campus or online variant. These courses enroll students in the hundreds or perhaps reaching a thousand per course. But these courses do award credit and a traditional degree. I prefer to call these “scaled online programs” (SOPs) that use MOOC technology and pedagogy to reduce cost and increase scale. In these SOPs, the instructional and assessment patterns are far more like an online degree than the original super-large MOOC(1). The Illinois degree is just starting but Georgia Tech has admitted several thousand students into their program since it started.

(4) Another recent variation is the ASU / Edx Global Freshman Experience – where they want to provide a scalable online experience covering the general education requirements typically covering the freshman year at many universities. Students will earn ASU credit at a reduced rate with the hope of completing an inexpensive Freshman year and transferring into a traditional program with sophomore standing.

We can better understand the doomsday scenarios if we look at each of these in detail.

So far the “Real MOOCs” (1) have only made things better. Our incoming students who take these classes are stronger and the rest of the students taking these classes were not likely to enroll in any formal degree programs.

The specializations (2) are a really interesting growth area and have the potential to be profitable in the small. A department or a few faculty can be paid off well, but it is not likely to make a dent in the overall budget of a department or university. As these become more successful (and I think they will), they have the potential to reduce the demand for professional masters (like our MSI degree) in some fields. I am pretty confident that in 3-4 years people who already have an undergraduate degree will have a wide range of highly applicable specializations they can enroll in if they want to supplement their knowledge at relatively low-cost and without having to quit their job to come back to school for two years and go into debt – so this is something to watch.

We shall see if the MOOC Degrees (3) grow. In reality these are not all that much different from online degrees that we have had for over a decade except that they are cheaper. If ten-year-old online MBA programs have not significantly displaced on campus education, these new MOOC-styled online degrees are not likely to have any different effect. These degrees still need faculty and a university and the money goes to the university. The question in these is one of brand value.

If Georgia Tech graduates 10,000 masters degree students per year and only 10 of them are on-campus – what will the value of the GT brand really be? There are already lots of places where you can get a low-cost quickie masters – I think that if GT is successful at delivering big numbers, they will soon be seen as the “Community College of Computer Science Masters Degrees” and badly devalue their overall brand. If they can’t scale it up – what was the point? If the reality is somewhere in between – then it won’t be a profit windfall. Ultimately I think that the GT Masters and Illinois iMBA will either be copied everywhere or stay relatively small. In either scenario, the net is no real change.

One interesting thing reported about the GT program is the fact that >70% of the students in the scalable online masters are US students and >70% of the student in the on-campus masters are international students. There are a lot of ways to look at that data. One way is to think that the online masters is reaching students that are unlikely to ever come to any campus for a residential masters. So they have an education available to them that they would not otherwise be able to take – so that is a good thing. When you make revenue from populations that were previously unserved, it does not harm your old lines of revenue.

But the profits in these “Online Degrees using MOOC Pedagogies” (3) are not likely to be to “windfall” levels. From what I hear about old-style online programs is that they do not make significantly more profit than on-campus programs if done well. And sometimes they are more expensive to produce. They increase revenue and increase expenses and lead to a little more profit – but they are not a windfall. And these new MOOC degrees(3) are specifically designed to keep the marginal cost per student low. Lower costs mean you need to scale to make profit – but how much profit? If a lot of schools enter the space and compete revenue will move towards cost – and “poof” no more windfall.

The programs that try to sell low-cost credits to freshman and sophomores (4) are also nothing new. Students can take on campus or online courses from community colleges right now. It is hard to see how the ASU/edX program will be much different other than the fact that unimaginative New York Times writers will fetishize it for a while. And yes – this will be a cash cow for ASU – they will charge a little more than community college and give students a slightly “more transferable” brand of credit. In some ways, this ASU/edX effort might be seen as re-launch of the out-of-vogue “for profit” universities – except now it hides itself within in an old-line brand and will be more international.

In the long run, this too will not be substantially different except that ASU will be lining its pockets at the expense of the students, parents and federal government instead of the for-profits. And if ASU produces 100K sophomores, schools will start to devalue their transfer credits without telling the students – so the students will be triply screwed and ASU will laugh all the way to the bank. If ASU sells a “US Freshman Experience” to a large number of international students who are very unlikely to get student visas as sophomores, it will be very profitable but also very misleading and sad. It will be fun while the NYT writes about it and ASU reports exciting numbers – but then it will crash on its own weight and traditional education will not be changed.

The fallacy is that somehow these “rebranded” old ideas will lead to windfall profits and cause a seismic shift where the students get their education. The problem is that the market, and the relationship between cost to produce an education and the price we charge for an education, the scarcity of education and the value of scarce degrees, and the natural intrinsic value of an in-person residential experience means that the current way we do higher education is really hard to displace. Things are the way they are because of the value that everyone is getting from the current system.

While it is unlikely that the MOOCization of old ideas will topple any existing structures, the MOOC movement will enhance some brands and harm others. universities and faculty members will gain from participation if they make wise choices and investments.

The right strategy is to actively engage in all of it and find what makes higher education better – and do more of that. Because making education better is what makes universities more valuable and ensures the long-term survival of higher education.