Massive Open Online Course (MOOC): An Examination When the Internet debuted decades ago, all parties involved were aware of the fact that it would no doubt change the world, and change the way that we live. This has been proven to be true a thousand times over. One of the most profound impacts that it has had on society is that the internet has proven itself to be capable of bridging distance and bringing people together. People aren't just able to make friends from all over the world, but they're able to collaborate and work together with people from all over the world, seeing how others live, trading knowledge and trading understanding. Online education has been one of the pinnacle examples of this phenomenon. At this time, online education is rapidly expanding, and as anyone can see the possibilities attached to online learning are truly vast. One manifestation of this is the MOOC: the Massive Open Online Course. This is a form of online education where a course on a particular subject is open to thousands of students rather than just hundreds. Given the drastic nature of such a course, it's highly controversial. This paper examines two wildly different perspectives on MOOC by comparing the thoughts and opinions of Karen Head vs. Thomas Friedman. Ultimately this paper will demonstrate that the thoughts and opinions of Thomas Friedman are incredibly accurate and generally correct about the potential of MOOCs and all developments of MOOC.

One of the most important points that Friedman makes is the potential of MOOCs for a real revolution in balancing out the playing field so that higher learning can be more accessible to all. Many of the problems in connection to education are about access and opportunity, with the best education being reserved for the rich and for the privileged. Consider the following, an elite institution like MIT has built an artificial intelligence lab and is pairing up with Harvard and...

As Friedman explains, one of the leaders of this MOOC, Arant Agarwal, asserted that in just the last few months, "some 155,000 students from around the world have taken edX's first course: an M.I.T. intro class on circuits. 'That is greater than the total number of M.I.T. alumni in its 150-year history,' he said. Yes, only a small percentage complete all the work, and even they still tend to be from the middle and upper classes of their societies, but I am convinced that within five years these platforms will reach a much broader demographic. Imagine how this might change U.S. foreign aid. For relatively little money, the U.S. could rent space in an Egyptian village, install two dozen computers and high-speed satellite Internet access, hire a local teacher as a facilitator, and invite in any Egyptian who wanted to take online courses with the best professors in the world, subtitled in Arabic" (Friedman, 2014). The overwhelming point that Friedman makes in this excerpt are the massive possibilities that courses like these offer to the average individual. Courses like these mean that higher learning and higher levels of education now become available to more people: higher learning no longer becomes something which is just reserved for those who can afford it. This signifies a deep and intensive leveling of the overall playing-field. Allowing the rest of the world to have access to higher levels of education and better teachers is no longer an issue of having the money to fund it: the Internet and computer systems can bridge that gap like never before.
It would be delusional to argue that opportunities in America don't continue to be skewed and influenced by money: they still definitely are. There still remain opportunities and prospective jobs which are just available for those who have had an education at a top-tier school -- the bulk of which are graduates from upper-middle class and…