To open with full disclosure, I am a huge fan of Open Courseware (OCW), Creative Commons licensing, and the notion of free knowledge. However, as an Educational Venture Analyst I would have to turn down the Royal Roads University (RRU) proposal based on the pitch.
One of the main thrusts of the pitch is that opening RRU courses will raise the university’s profile. MIT OCW became widely known because they were MIT – they already had a significant global profile. Has the profile of the Dixie State College of Utah (also an OCW member) been raised since they started opening their online courses? Burgess gives little data about the affect opening their courseware has had on other institutions nor does she address the technical requirements or costs of this initiative.
Burgess (2008) also makes the bold claim that “being open can really help us with learner recruitment”. However, MIT’s freshman enrollment before OCW was approximately 1050 students (Arnaout, 2000). The freshman enrollment eight years after OCW? 1051 students (MIT, 2009). Perhaps there are other recruitment metrics Burgess is anticipating for the small university but she doesn’t mention any.
While I appreciate Burgess’s passion for a very noble venture, the pitch simply did not establish sufficient details on the benefit to the institution to warrant pursuing.
Arnaout, R. (2000). MIT Cuts Size of Class of 2004 To Prepare for Housing Crunch. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://tech.mit.edu/V120/N8/8enroll.8n.html
Burgess, M. (2008). ETEC522 Assignment 3. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1avzWv3_JDw
MIT (2009). MIT Facts. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://web.mit.edu/facts/enrollment.html


