Category: Views

Mikel Amigot | New York

2U, the most visible company in the OPM (Online Program Management) industry, announced on September 11 what it called “an unprecedented new Framework for Transparency”, which “will offer students, universities, and policymakers data on outcomes, quality, institutional independence, and more for the degree and non-degree offerings.”

“2U becomes the first OPM to openly call for, and embrace, greater transparency,” the Lanham, Maryland-based company said in a statement.

“We call upon other OPMs across the industry to join us in committing to greater transparency,” 2U Co-Founder and CEO Christopher “Chip” Paucek added.

The new framework is grounded in six pillars: University Oversight & Accountability; Marketplace Openness; Access; Affordability; Quality; and Outcomes.

Facing growing scrutiny, 2U’s move isn’t as big as it looks, given that the company is publicly traded (NASDAQ: TWOU) and needs to recover investors’ confidence after losing over half of its market value in the last seven weeks.

Secondly, the controversial company needs to self-regulate, getting ahead of potential regulatory changes.

In addition, it would be an attempt to put pressure on competitors such as Pearson, Wiley, Academic Partnerships, Noodle and Bisk to do the same.

“Paucek believes that releasing more information about the company and its operations will help prove just how ‘excellent’ it is,” wrote Doug Lederman in Inside Higher Ed.

A Public Database of Online Program Contracts

In relation to the OPM industry, the Century Foundation published a report yesterday titled “Dear Colleges: Take Control of Your Online Courses.” It elaborated on the relationships between 79 public colleges and OPM companies and included a database of scores of contracts outlining the terms of the arrangements.

“Our hope is that this action-focused report will assist schools and those who care about them to jumpstart a paradigm shift in how online education in the United States is done,” the Foundation said.

• EdSurge: Layoffs, Deferred Tuition and More Transparency Among 2U Changes Since Stock Fall
• Education Dive: A look inside public universities’ OPM contracts

IBL News | New York

MIT announced on September 10 that it appointed a transitional executive committee of faculty and senior staff to lead the MIT Media Lab, after the resignation of its director Joi Ito over his financial ties to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

Meanwhile, an independent investigation by law firm Goodwin Procter, announced by MIT’s President Rafael Reif on Saturday, is still ongoing. [Update: Email from President Reif to the MIT Community]

Pattie Maes, professor of media arts and sciences at MIT, will serve as chair of the committee, managing the future lab governance model and search for new director.

Four more members, along with their areas of responsibility, will be:

• Deb Roy, professor of media arts and sciences: executive director of operations and communications;
• Tod Machover, professor and head of the Program in Media Arts and Sciences: community engagement and culture change;
• Maria Zuber, MIT’s vice president for research: policies, practices, and culture of research; and
• Ramona Allen, the School of Architecture and Planning’s assistant dean for human resources and, as of Oct. 1, MIT’s vice president of human resources: administrative organization.

“These have been exceptionally difficult times for the Media Lab, and I want to thank the members of the community for their dedication to the lab and for their commitment to real change,” said Hashim Sarkis, dean of the School of Architecture and Planning.

A Whistleblower Revealed the Ties of MIT to Epstein

In an internal meeting at the lab, on September 4, Ito admitted to having taken $525,000 from Epstein for the Media Lab and an additional $1.2 million for his private ventures.

According to an article at MIT Technology Review, emails provided to the New Yorker and the New York Times by whistleblower Signe Swenson, a former development associate at the Media Lab, showed Ito, along along with Peter Cohen, a former development official at the lab, acknowledging that Epstein’s money needed to remain anonymous.

The hidden ties with Epstein –who died in jail on August 10– were so widely known at the Media Lab that staff in Ito’s office began to call him “he who must not be named” or “Voldemort,” according to the New Yorker. Questions also remain about how the donations evaded detection by MIT.

The lack of transparency around the close relationships between academic institutions and an elite network of donors is a constant in the higher education industry, according to observers.

MIT and Harvard Professors and Thinkers Supported Joi Ito

Epstein had a reputation for cultivating relationships with scientists. He also funded many scientific projects, including some at MIT and Harvard University. He was linked to deceased MIT professor and AI pioneer Marvin Minsky, who was recently accused of having sex with one of Epstein’s underage victims.

Now Epstein’s support has become a source of public shame for the Media Lab. Mainly, because documents showed that the MIT Media Lab – an elite group within MIT –, was aware of Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender. Additionally, Epstein’s directed contributions to the lab far exceeded the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted.

Another angle of the controversy refers to the group of prominent professors and thinkers involved with MIT and Harvard who signed a letter in support of MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito in mid-August. The letter sought to gather support for Ito, who apologized for accepting funds from the now-deceased sexual criminal.

This list includes as signers Harvard Law professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig, Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand, Media Lab co-founder Nicholas Negroponte, Harvard law professor and EFF board member Jonathan Zittrain, and synthetic biology pioneer George Church. 

MIT is calling for an independent investigation following explosive allegations that two MIT Media Lab officials made efforts to make sure Jeffrey Epstein’s name was not associated with donations he made or helped solicithttps://t.co/kXFp6uP1ye pic.twitter.com/fBW8SVlljm

— New Day (@NewDay) September 9, 2019

“There were so many anonymized secret references to Epstein and his contacts at the lab that they started to refer to him as ‘Voldemort,’ or ‘He who must not be named,’” said @RonanFarrow. Hear him on how the @medialab hid donations from Jeffrey Epstein: https://t.co/lHpuOUaFcM

— WGBH News (@wgbhnews) September 10, 2019

IBL News | New York 

Joi Ito, the director of Media Lab and professor at MIT, resigned Saturday over his ties to convicted pedophile and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

“After giving the matter a great deal of thought over the past several days and weeks, I think that it is best that I resign as director of the media lab and as a professor and employee of the Institute, effective immediately,” Ito wrote in an internal e-mail.

In a message to the M.I.T. community, Rafael Reif, the president of M.I.T., wrote, “Because the accusations in the story are extremely serious, they demand an immediate, thorough and independent investigation.” Rafael Reif announced that M.I.T.’s general counsel would engage an outside law firm to oversee that investigation.

“The acceptance of the Epstein gifts involved a mistake of judgment,” stated Reif.

According to a New Yorker investigation, the prestigious MIT Media Lab received at least $7.5 million from Jeffrey Epstein and Ito would allegedly ask that the donations were counted as anonymous. “New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender and that Epstein directed contributions to the lab far exceeding the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted,” explained The New Yorker.

Emails reveal donations cover-up

Joi Ito [in the picture below] resigned just hours after The New Yorker published emails showing how he had attempted to conceal donations from Epstein.

The embattled director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab had previously apologized for accepting money from Epstein for the lab and for his own personal ventures.

The newly disclosed emails show he didn’t just make the wrong call in accepting the money, as he explained to lab members as recently as Wednesday: he also ordered that Epstein’s donations be listed as “anonymous” going back years, as Epstein had been disqualified as a donor following his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. Epstein was facing additional charges before his death on a prison cell this summer.

“Top MIT officials knew of Epstein’s ties to Media Lab, e-mails show,” titled yesterday The Boston Globe.

Professor at Harvard, too

The New York Times reported that Ito also left the boards of the MacArthur Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and The New York Times Company, as well as a visiting professorship at Harvard University.

One of Ito’s emails reportedly says that Epstein directed a $2 million gift to the lab from the Bill Gates, but the Gates Foundation has denied any business connection to Epstein.

Brown University announced that it has placed its director of development for computer science and former MIT Media Lab director of development and strategy, Peter Cohen on administrative leave, The Providence Journal reported.

Peter Cohen forwarded a request from Epstein to another colleague at MIT with the note: “Jeffrey money needs to be anonymous. Thanks.”

“Like its parent university, the famed research center became far too comfortable selling its prestige. Even to Jeffrey Epstein,” writes Justin Peters in an article on Slate titled “The Moral Rot the MIT Media Lab”.

“Jeffrey Epstein used MIT to launder his image. It’s a lesson for the #MeToo era,” writes Vox. “Revelations about the sex offender’s connections to the MIT Media Lab are a reminder of the power of enablers.”

Mikel Amigot | New York

Proprietary software providers like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and Blackboard have dominated the technology scene for years. Not anymore.

Publicly accessible open-source has transformed how software is developed and delivered in the last two decades. It is getting increasingly popular, with 30 million developers exchanging code and ideas and collaborating at GitHub.

In this new environment, the open-source services industry is set to exceed $17B in 2019, and expected to reach $33B by 2011, according to CB Insights.

An indication of the growth can be found on recent acquisitions (Red Hat by IBM for $34B, and GitHub by Microsoft for $7.5B), alongside large public market valuations like those of MongoDB ($7.9B) and Elastic ($7.3B).

An Alternative Which Started in the 1960s

Open-source began to offer alternatives to proprietary solutions in the 1960s when modifying and redistributing the source code became an established practice. Many manufacturers of proprietary software with proprietary hardware encouraged users to troubleshot and modify source code themselves, in order to limit the need for frequent, onsite visits. Universities began sharing bug fixes and even software enhancements with other universities and soon thereafter with the public.

Some of the most notable projects since the dot-com bubble include Mozilla’s Firefox in 2002 as well as Git (a source code version-control system created by Linus Torvalds) in 2005.

More recently, we’ve witnessed the growth of open-source databases like Redis, open-source infrastructure-as-a-service like OpenStack, and even open-source machine learning libraries like TensorFlow, Docker, Kubernetes, and Swift.

The Business Behind

In terms of monetization, the model of “commercial support” is one of the most established methods. Enterprises are willing to pay for software that is otherwise free because they want assurances. They want security flaws fixed, dedicated assistance, and software longevity. They don’t want to implement open-source software that has persistent vulnerabilities, complicates development, or may become obsolete.

An increasingly popular revenue model is referred to as “open-core,” which offers a blend of open-source and proprietary software. The core platform remains free and open-source by being feature limited. Companies can then choose to pay for add-on services or to unlock a proprietary, feature-rich platform.

Examples of open-core companies include Docker, Elastics, GitLab, MongoDB, and Redis.

The Case of Google and Tech Giants

The second type of monetization strategy is that of the corporate-sponsored project. For example, Google is the primary developer of Kubernetes, and while Google doesn’t monetize Kubernetes directly, the wide adoption of the service has brought awareness to the company’s cloud service, Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Another one of Google’s most successful open-source projects in recent years is machine learning (ML) library TensorFlow. Its widespread use has created a large, engaged community, resulting in contributions from many independent developers.

With thousands of developers contributing, Google and other tech giants such as Microsoft, IBM, Intel and Facebook — none of which are open-source companies — benefit from the free developer input and direct user feedback. This allows organizations to build better software faster.

In addition, these projects also act as an ongoing lead generation for the sponsoring organization.

• Research Report: Open-Source Software Has Changed The Way Software Is Developed. Here’s Where The $33B Industry Is Headed

Mikel Amigot | IBL News

Moving into a “digital-first” publishing house is, certainly, a bold move.

Pearson –the biggest education company in the world, with 24,000 employees operating in 70 countries– announced this week that all of its 1,500 U.S. titles will become digital, going further than any other textbook company.

Some analysts say that this shift can entirely change the textbook market, mostly because it is an attempt to control the distribution channels.

Pearson justified its big move away from print calling the new approach a “product as a service model and a generational business shift to be much more like apps, professional software or the gaming industry.”

This new development format will allow Pearson to update textbooks on an ongoing basis, taking into account new developments in the field of study, new technologies, data analytics, and efficacy research, the company said in a news announcement.

The switch to digital —which will go into effect next year— will also lower the cost for students:

“We will effectively have three price points. They will vary by discipline, but broadly speaking, the average ebook will be $40. You can still rent a physical textbook for $60. And a fully integrated digital product, like Revel, MyLab or Mastering, will be $65 to $80,” said John Fallon, CEO of Pearson, in a statement.

Many of their print textbooks are priced at $200 or $300 today. College students on average spend more than $1,200 on books and materials, according to The College Board.

“We’ve changed our business model to deliver affordable, convenient and personalized digital materials to students. Our digital-first model lowers prices for students and, over time, increases our revenues. By providing better value to students, they have less reason to turn to the secondary market. This will create a more predictable, visible revenue stream with a better quality of earnings that enables us to serve the needs of learners and customers more effectively,” added John Fallon.

With the print versions, Pearson is trying to discourage the second-hand rental market mostly through Amazon, Chegg, and college bookstores.

Additionally, Pearson will save on printing, packaging and other costs associated with making physical textbooks.

Phil Hill, an expert blogger, and partner at MindWires Consulting, said that going digital-first “makes plenty of sense on paper for textbook publishers, as it enables them to “re-establish control” over the distribution of their products and cut off the secondhand rental market.”

Pearson’s major announcement comes at a time when the textbook industry is seeing a number of deals and transactions on digital courseware. A year ago, Cengage launched a subscription with unlimited access to its digital materials. In addition, Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education announced a merger, and Wiley acquired two startups —Zyante and Knewton— to bolster its courseware offerings.