In grade school, I remember learning the following: a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. This logic lesson learned in elementary school can be applied to today’s debates about online education and MOOCs (massive open online courses). While MOOCs are online courses they are not what most universities consider online education. Unfortunately, most of the press these days about MOOCs, unfairly villianizes online education. Take for example the recent NPR Marketplace segment on Duke University’s announced decision to decline the invitation to offer online classes through the company 2U. What bothers me about the piece is not that Duke has decided to think about what the 2U partnership would mean to them, but rather the tying of this decision to Amherst’s decision not to team up with Harvard and MIT to offer free MOOCs.

This is where the square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square analogy comes into play. The 2U project is a really interesting collaboration between a number of “top-tier” schools to provide online courses to students. What this is not is a MOOC. These courses are not massive—classes are capped at approximately twenty students—and the courses are not open—students must apply and there are admissions standards (along with course fees and ultimately college credit). In other words, comparing Amherst’s decision and Duke’s decision is like comparing apples and oranges. In Duke’s case, they were evaluating becoming part of a consortium of schools offering online for-credit courses to a limited number of select students through a third-party clearing house, while Amherst was considering potentially teaching thousands of students for free in an online environment. Yes both options are online education (a square is a rectangle), but a MOOC is not the same as an online course (a rectangle is not a square).

As we look at the debate about online education in the United States, there have been some other recent articles/postings that help to clarify, perhaps, the roles that both online courses (something more like what students are used to taking just with a modality change) and MOOCs may play in the marketplace. Donald Clark’s recent blog post, MOOCs: Who’s using MOOCs? 10 different target audiences, provides some insight into some of the potential target markets for MOOCs. It should be noted that none of these 10 audiences are students who might be taking these courses for credit.

Personally I think there is great value in MOOCs for audiences like lifelong learners (number 8 on Clark’s list). Think of folks who are unable to participate in continuing-education opportunities in their communities either because there are no offerings (or few offering) or because they are unable to travel or otherwise participate. With the cost of college education, I also think there is value for audiences of high school students (number 5) or potential students (numbers 3 and 4). With these audiences the value comes in a student being able to explore subjects of interest without having to make an economic commitment. This opportunity allows students to come into college with a better sense of the majors that will best work for them without them having to make “costly” exploratory mistakes on the journey to discovering their passion.

There is also great value in the idea of these courses for professional development. The ability for professionals to quickly, easily, and affordably get reliable information that they can immediately apply to their work environment is certainly a need. The idea of attempting to create curated courses that allow these information seekers to find quality options is a real bonus. For example, Coursera is beginning to offer these types of professional development classes to K-12 teachers. The catalog seems impressive and includes courses from, among others, the Museum of Modern Art and the American Museum of Natural History. As professional-development opportunities go, these are two examples of ones that would likely not be available to most if not for the online medium.

The problem with MOOCs, and ultimately what I believe is the cause of some of the backlash to online education in general, are stories like the one out of San Jose State reported on in The Chronicle of Higher Education. In this case, the faculty in the philosophy department at San Jose State were being asked to teach a course developed on edX by a Harvard professor. Justifiably, the faculty didn’t believe that this was the right course of action (see their full open letter) as there were faculty at the university who were more than qualified to develop a course on the topic. Online courses should not be seen as a way for universities to save money either by contracting outside to have courses made or by forcing faculty to teach using someone else’s material.

Online courses should be seen as opportunities for universities to capitalize on the knowledge of their instructors while providing students multiple ways to complete their degrees. Many faculty already share information with their colleagues either formally or informally. For example, a syllabus from another faculty member may serve as the basis for a new faculty member’s course. The new faculty member will likely use elements like the objectives and perhaps some of the assessments when building the foundation of their course. In a face-to-face classroom environment this makes sense. It is the tangible evidence of the course. When we move the course online, however, all the lecture material is now available and it seems so easy to just say “here, go teach.” This attitude is short sighted, as how a faculty member presents the material and accomplishes the objectives is what gives the course personality. The availability of these online materials should instead be seen as a repository from which faculty can pick and choose: reusing, repurposing, customizing, and augmenting to create their own course experience.

As the debate about online courses continues, it is important to remember these three things:

1. A MOOC is online education (a square is a rectangle), but not all online courses are MOOCs (a rectangle is not a square).
2. There are elements that can and should be shared, but faculty should be allowed to create their own classroom experience.
3. Not all classes are good—perhaps not a popular view—but don’t blame that on modality.