Ah, but that's assuming something very much in debate. Humans are actually quite predictable in many ways, though not as well as springs (currently). Aggregate behavior can often be predicted to reasonable accuracy, at least as well as with other complex, non-human systems like the weather. And even individual behavior can be predicted with enough information (and neuroscientists can even predict some specific decisions seconds in advance, given the right instrumentation). Just knowing some demographic and contextual information about a person hugely reduces your error on predicting what their "choices" will be.
It's a little different because the weatherman isn't forcing his predictions on you.
The debate takes on a different dimension when you're talking about political policy, when the weatherman passes a law forcing everyone to wear raincoats on days of high chances of precipitation.
I find this kind of reports very encouraging. I think the future of education is professors becoming free agents in a free market. Really, why can a lawyer set up his own firm or a doctor start his own practice and deal with life and death situations but a professor can’t just teach a few calculus courses without being affiliated with a university?
There was a relevant quote posted recently by "tokenadult": “the diligence of public teachers is more or less corrupted by the circumstances which render them more or less independent of their success and reputation in their particular professions.. . . . The privileges of graduation, besides, are in many countries . . . obtained only by attending the lectures of the public teachers. . . . The endowment of schools and colleges have, in this manner, not only corrupted the diligence of public teachers, but have rendered it almost impossible to have any good private ones." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Part 3, Article II (1776)
Well, for one thing, because we as a society may decide we don't want professors or students limiting their field of studies solely motivated by its ROI.
>>My cofounder, Ryan, has spent the past couple of years helping developers at Columbia learn how to apply their theoretical computer science skills to actually programming. He’s taught hundreds of Columbia students the basics (and beyond).
Sorry, but students that get admitted to Columbia aren't real tough to motivate.
Sal Khan has already had millions of every kind of everyday students young and old chose to set aside their video games and sat down and work their math at KhanAcademy.org. Some nuns are starting sainthood talk for Sal at some Catholic schools.
>>if it was funded by someone else (e.g. the public) then my view is that everyone who contributed to funding that research should have the ability to access and use the results.
If you show those results to "the public", they'll likely want their money back. I know I do.
Why? Khan Academy is a non profit organization. They are not looking to make money. They are trying to change the world of education.
I am impressed by these numbers because it means that more people are now aware that there is a quality free resource where they can educate themselves.
Yes, money is a validation if your goal is to make money. If I am a for-profit company and I show you millions of visitors for my website but no real revenues, I would agree that it's not impressive.
As the other commentator pointed out, their goal is not to make money. And this is impressive because it's a huge progress towards their stated goal.
"We're a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education to anyone anywhere." http://www.khanacademy.org/about
Is it really that different? Try to attach an object to several springs and see if it behaves "rationally".