This is not a link to an article about Python, it is an advertisement for an absurdly expensive commercial course, one that costs US$10 per page, and offers no clue about the quality of the material itself until the customer has paid.
Absurdly expensive? That's a bit too harsh, don't you think?
I'd love to get your thoughts on this one. One thing - $10 per page? Not quite sure I follow you there?
How can my comment be regarded as harsh, when someone is relying on public ignorance of freely available, open-source documentation, written by people in the public interest, to sell a substitute without any chance to preview the materials?
> One thing - $10 per page? Not quite sure I follow you there?
Okay.
1) I don't believe I'm relying on public ignorance. I think I'm relying on the fact that a lot of people feel a video-based lecture works better for them, than static documentation.
2) It's not $10 per video. You pay once, and you get the whole course. That's a UX problem with Udemy.
> I don't believe I'm relying on public ignorance.
What you believe isn't really compelling, but public ignorance is true force of nature.
> I think I'm relying on the fact that a lot of people feel a video-based lecture works better for them, than static documentation.
People who sign up for a video course about computer programming very clearly do not understand computer programming. Imagine one of the students applying for a job as an IPython expert and saying, "I took a video course!"
This is not how people learn these kinds of things, in more than a superficial way. But it is a way for businesses to make a lot of money from ignorant people.
> It's not $10 per video. You pay once, and you get the whole course.
False. Each section is $10. Each course heading has a title, a duration, and a requirement for $10. Did you bother to look at the graphic I posted?
> That's a UX problem with Udemy.
I'm sure that a dissatisfied customer will prevail in court, saying, "even though each section was priced separately, I was given to understand that $10 covered everything."
I'm pretty sure it's not $10 per section. It's $10 per course. Yes, the fact remains that it's not clear. And yes, I did bother to see the image you posted.
What you say about video course consumers not understanding computer programming - well, you sure have a point. But then again, a lot of good coders take up Coursera courses. You're saying they don't understand programming?
> But then again, a lot of good coders take up Coursera courses. You're saying they don't understand programming?
It speaks to their level of seriousness and dedication. Also, since computer programming isn't conducted by means of video, its teaching can't reasonably be expected to be in that form either. It would be like learning about marriage by watching videos, and then expecting to succeed at the real thing on that basis. :)
That's quote true - but one could also look at the videos as a means to an end, right? Taking the marriage analogy, it's like getting into a live-in, to see how marriage works. But then again, I'm the last guy to talk of relationships!
IMHO, a video course needs more than just videos to get coders to get their hands dirty. Practice problems, or just open-ended assignments. That's something I am working on.
At any rate, thanks, mate. This was a pretty intense and interesting discussion :)
9 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 39.9 ms ] threadCompared to what? Compared to this?:
http://ipython.org/documentation.html
How can my comment be regarded as harsh, when someone is relying on public ignorance of freely available, open-source documentation, written by people in the public interest, to sell a substitute without any chance to preview the materials?
> One thing - $10 per page? Not quite sure I follow you there?
Fair enough:
http://i.imgur.com/CT8nu5e.png
Which word didn't you understand?
2) It's not $10 per video. You pay once, and you get the whole course. That's a UX problem with Udemy.
What you believe isn't really compelling, but public ignorance is true force of nature.
> I think I'm relying on the fact that a lot of people feel a video-based lecture works better for them, than static documentation.
People who sign up for a video course about computer programming very clearly do not understand computer programming. Imagine one of the students applying for a job as an IPython expert and saying, "I took a video course!"
This is not how people learn these kinds of things, in more than a superficial way. But it is a way for businesses to make a lot of money from ignorant people.
> It's not $10 per video. You pay once, and you get the whole course.
False. Each section is $10. Each course heading has a title, a duration, and a requirement for $10. Did you bother to look at the graphic I posted?
> That's a UX problem with Udemy.
I'm sure that a dissatisfied customer will prevail in court, saying, "even though each section was priced separately, I was given to understand that $10 covered everything."
What you say about video course consumers not understanding computer programming - well, you sure have a point. But then again, a lot of good coders take up Coursera courses. You're saying they don't understand programming?
It speaks to their level of seriousness and dedication. Also, since computer programming isn't conducted by means of video, its teaching can't reasonably be expected to be in that form either. It would be like learning about marriage by watching videos, and then expecting to succeed at the real thing on that basis. :)
IMHO, a video course needs more than just videos to get coders to get their hands dirty. Practice problems, or just open-ended assignments. That's something I am working on.
At any rate, thanks, mate. This was a pretty intense and interesting discussion :)