Zhu 1

Gordon Zhu
Spring 2009
The World is Our Student

I. Introduction

The purpose of a university is to educate students so that they might be more productive
members of society. Arthur Hobbs of Texas A&M University describes universities as a
“collection of people united in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge1.” For the greater part
of history, only the most affluent had access to higher education because of technological and
financial constraints. With the rapid progress of technology however, institutions now have the
new capability to spread knowledge to anyone in the world, at little or no cost. MIT
opencourseware (OCW) is a prime example of this new capability. They have gone above and
beyond to create the most robust selection of university coursework available anywhere, and plan
to make their entire catalogue of course materials free to the public.

Even with the huge commitment that MIT has taken on, their investment has been only
$4 million per year2. When you consider that approximately 50 million people use the site3, the
cost per user is only $.08 per user annually. Using another metric: if you use the approximate
annual cost for a student to attend MIT of $50,000, $4 million is only enough money to pay for
the cost of 80 students. Long-run costs will be considerably lower and will eventually consist of
routine maintenance costs once the infrastructure is in place. MIT has strived to fulfill the goals
outlined in its mission statement and is trying to make the entire university open to the world, but
the MIT approach is only one example of how universities are tackling the issue of OCW. While
many universities such as UC Berkeley4 are following the model developed by MIT, other
preeminent institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania have thus far taken the opposite
approach and have operated under a closed system.

II. Rights and duties

In the OCW sphere, there are three modes of participation. The first is proactive, the
second is accommodative, and the third is obstructionist. The first mode is based on the MIT
model. The second mode describes universities that do not take active measures to hide content
but lack a dedicated OCW system. Finally, the third mode describes universities that take active
measures to hide information from the public. In reality, universities that fit into the second and
third modes are exceedingly rare as these categories are gross simplifications. Most schools that
do not follow the first mode of participation are somewhere between the second and third modes.
This paper argues that the top 40 national universities in the United States as defined by U.S.

1 [Hobbs]

2 [d'Oliveira]

3 []

4 []
 Zhu 2

News & World Report5 have an ethical obligation to adopt the first mode of participation. This
argument is based on two ethical frameworks: rights and duties and utilitarianism.
If the purpose of a university is to create and disseminate knowledge, then universities
should strive to fulfill this duty to the best of their ability. If this is true, adopting the third mode
of participation is a clear violation of this duty because hiding knowledge runs contrary to the
goal of dissemination. The reason that the second mode of participation is unethical is more
subtle. Since it is well within the capabilities of these top universities to implement a dedicated
OCW system, they cannot claim that they are unable to do so. At a bare minimum, a dedicated
OCW system could be as simple as a website with links to different courses, if this is the best
that the university can do based on various limitations. If this is a duty for universities, this
implies that individuals that are seeking knowledge from these institutions have a correlative
moral right to do so6. The reason for focusing on preeminent institutions is that it is clear, as has
been true with MIT’s OCW, that implementing such a system has no detrimental effects on
enrollment and revenue. On a more macro-level, the focus is on U.S. institutions due to the large
differences in education systems in other countries.

Second, if one is in a unique position to help others at little or no cost, then one has a
moral duty to do so. In other words, “if it would cost you very little to do a great benefit to
someone, then you ought to do it7.” Since universities have a privileged position as creators and
disseminators of knowledge, they are in a position to do a great benefit to knowledge seekers.
Because they have a special capability to do good, universities have a moral obligation to use
this capability and implement an OCW system. This special capability argument is based on
Thomas Dunfee’s work in the case of pharmaceutical companies and AIDS vaccines in Africa8.
Universities are in an analogous position to the global pharmaceutical companies in Dunfee’s
article. First, universities are uniquely capable and have a privileged position as creators and
disseminators of knowledge. Additionally, universities control knowledge that can benefit a large
group of people at little or no cost. Much in the same way that the global pharmaceutical
companies developed a new vaccine that could save many lives, universities, through advanced
internet technology, can now enrich many lives through improved access to education. Though
an individual’s desire to learn is not as dire as the life and death situation that AIDs sufferers
face, education is nonetheless extremely important to the well-being and development of modern
nations and their economies.

A good example of unrealized capability can be found at the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania. Every single room in the main building, Huntsman Hall, is equipped
with the best equipment, including state-of-the-art video cameras and microphones.
Unfortunately, though the capability exists, this technology is rarely used in the classroom.
Lectures are digitally recorded only during approved religious holidays, and even then, access is
restricted to current students in that course. Even more egregious is Wharton’s handling of a
course about the financial crisis called Management 1999. This is a prime example of a
university’s failure to fulfill its duty to disseminate knowledge. In this instance, the school

5 []

6 []

7 [Wicks, 1987]

8 [Dunfee, 2006]
 Zhu 3

recognized that there could be some benefit from granting access to other Wharton students not
enrolled in the course, but even non-business undergraduates at the university, let alone the
public were not given access. The entire catalogue of video lectures for the course from the
spring 2009 semester sits in the digital archives at Wharton, hidden from the world. The irony
that this paper advocates a non-commercial view of education in analyzing a business school is
not lost. In a time when peer institutions such as Berkeley are scrounging up donations to buy
video cameras and microphones for the purpose of OCW, the efforts at the Wharton School
appear completely inadequate. In stark contrast, MIT Professor and former International
Monetary Fund Chief, Simon Johnson, broadcasted his videos lectures of his course dealing with
the financial crisis through his blog, The Baseline Scenario10.

III. A changing mentality

Though universities say that they seek to benefit the world through creating and
spreading knowledge and that they value open access to information, actual practices often differ
in reality. For example, at many schools, courseware is password protected through the
implementation of programs such as Blackboard. Even professors who maintain separate
websites often have password protected sections for course materials. In this instance, the school
has taken active measures to hide and obfuscate information from the public. These institutions
have reached the third degree of participation. Far from the proactive approach that MIT has
taken in its course management system, they have gone the opposite way to hide information
from the public. Even worse, they have taken extra steps and incurred unnecessary costs to do so.

One explanation for why universities hide information from the public is due to a
commercial profit-making mindset11. Many fear that universities who share course materials will
lose revenue due to decreases in enrollment. This reasoning assumes that if prospective students
can have access to lecture materials for free, there will be no incentive to actually attend the
university. This could not be further from the truth, particularly in the case of prestigious
universities that have overwhelming demand. On the contrary, MIT found that OCW attracted
many students and was a reason that candidates applied for admission. Among prospective
students, nearly 30% cited OCW as a “significant reason” for their interest in attending MIT12.
Additionally, usage statistics from MIT opencourseware show that a large majority of users are
either “lifelong learners” or international users that use MIT’s materials to supplement their
experience at other institutions. This commercial mentality is a carryover from the thinking that
prevailed before the wide-usage of the internet. Having access to courseware is not a substitute
for the classroom experience; to take this stance is to marginalize professors and overlook the
value that they add in the classroom. Another main difference between attending a university and
consuming OCW is that traditional students are granted degrees to certify their satisfactory
mastery of required material. There is no such option for OCW users. In general, it is important
for top institutions that do not face enrollment uncertainty to be pioneers in OCW and prove that
this is a sustainable model.

9 []

10[]

11 [Newmarch, 2001]

12 [OpenCourseWare, 2006]
 Zhu 4

IV. Utilitarianism

In addition to rights and duties, from a utilitarian perspective, OCW is also highly
desirable. Arguments based on utilitarianism are difficult to prove because they are necessarily
based on expected forecasts of future costs and benefits to all stakeholders. Nonetheless,
understanding where OCW can create value is extremely useful for university administrators and
policy makers.

Universities can gain from the implementation of OCW because it is a form of indirect
advertising. Assume that OCW is widely adopted by dozens of universities. There would be a
natural competition to have the most popular OCW materials because courseware is a direct
reflection of the quality of the university. Therefore, OCW would give universities a chance to
showcase their strengths and core competencies. Following this line of logic, lesser known
universities could use OCW to level the playing field and show the public that their offerings are
on par with or better than more established institutions. This in turn would increase the quality of
teaching materials for all parties, traditional as well as OCW students. Newmarch posits a clever
situation when he says, “If someone is out to copy courseware, would you prefer it to be your
courseware or that of someone-else that is copied? If nothing else, a vanity argument should
prevail: ‘my courseware is the most highly copied in the world13.’” In this case, OCW usage
would be the sincerest form of flattery. More constructively, it would serve as free advertising
and raise the profile of the university so that it can attract better students and professors.

OCW could even have the potential to create a violent shake-up of the U.S. News &
World Report College Rankings used in this paper. Critics often complain that the ratings are
random and worry that prospective students are putting too much weight on various rankings. If
ratings companies included OCW ratings in their rankings this would immediately be the factor
with the most direct correlation to teaching quality. This is far more productive than having
students with limited information making decisions based on a ranking that splits hairs
depending on metrics such as acceptance rates14.

The most useful reason to implement OCW is for the benefit of self learners, individuals
who are simply interesting in learning for the sake of learning. This group is broad and might
include individuals who for one reason or another are not able to attend college. MIT OCW
statistics have also shown a large percentage of users use OCW to supplement courses that they
are taking at another institution. This has the added benefit of building links between learners
and instructors. Instructors are also major users of OCW and comprise about 17% of visitors15.
For example instructors in developing countries that are trying to structure a course for the first
time have found OCW to be extremely helpful. These are just a few examples of how OCW can
benefit its various stakeholders.

V. Con Arguments

13 [Newmarch, 2001]

14 [, 2008]

15 []
 Zhu 5

Opponents will approach this question from an angle that is focused on intellectual
property rights. In finding a solution to this argument, the most elegant answer can be found in
MIT’s implementation of their OCW project. For every course that is accessible to the public;
MIT gives its professors the option to participate. For example, if a professor is releasing a book
based on information that is included in course materials but is not yet public, then he or she can
opt out of OCW. Even while giving professors the option to participate, MIT’s program has
nonetheless seen over a 90% participation rate16. If a university can achieve an adoption rate this
high while still respecting the wishes of its faculty, this criticism seems to be of little concern.
This finding is particularly interesting because it reinforces the notion of the existence of a
hierarchy of duties. Though professors have every right to retain control over their intellectual
property, in most cases, they choose to participate in OCW because they feel that their duty as
creators and disseminators of knowledge is stronger than their desire to keep information private.
The reason that this policy has been so successful is because it is reasonable. If a professor has a
reasonable excuse to opt out, then he or she can do so. For example, a reasonable excuse would
be a course that has material related to an upcoming patent. However, in situations where the
professor does not have a reasonable excuse, he or she has a moral duty to participate. Not
surprisingly, MIT’s OCW backs this hypothesis. Since this policy gives professors protection
when there is reasonable cause, the policy is closely aligned with the intellectual property
concerns that critics bring forward.

This test of reasonableness is the best framework for deciding whether a course should be
open. This is favorable to an arbitrary rule; say for example, that graduate courses should be
excluded. For example, why should Wharton undergraduate courses be open and Wharton MBA
courses be closed when many of them are identical? In such cases, arbitrary rules fail to take into
account any reasonable concerns for protecting intellectual property. Therefore, the
reasonableness test gives decision makers a framework that has the flexibility to deal with
complicated situations that cannot be solved by a uniformly applied rule. For example, some
courses have confidential information and were designed to be seen only by a select group of
people. Such a course would pass a reasonableness test and could easily avoid inclusion in
OCW. Taken together, this hierarchy of duties that we see in the behavior of professors at MIT
lends further weight to the rights and duties argument discussed earlier. This shows that within
reason, professors are likely to place the importance of their duty as educators over their right to
control intellectual property, and they do so because of a commitment and belief in the purpose
and mission of the university model.

While the past few examples gave situations where professors could opt out of OCW
based on reasonableness, Jan Newmarch gives a great example of the opposite phenomena in his
article “Lessons from Open Source: Intellectual Property and Courseware.” He uses the example
of a calculus course to illustrate a subject where a common base of knowledge is sought and says
that attempts to hide such material “should be regarded with suspicion: either some new twist is
being used (rare), or more likely, some incompetence is being hidden or copyright material is
being used illegally17.” This example is important because the vast majority of courseware fits
this mold. That is, there would be no reasonable cause to keep the course closed. This example is
in tune with the data from MIT’s OCW system. The assumption that most of the courses fall

16 [Hockfield]

17 [Newmarch, 2001]
 Zhu 6

under a common base of knowledge do a large part to explain MIT's 90% professor participation
rate. Again, this is a major instance where professors have demonstrated that they place duty
above intellectual property rights given the reasonableness test.

Another contentious criticism of OCW is that universities would have to overhaul course
management systems. For example, schools that utilize Blackboard or webCafé will have to find
new ways to organize courses so that they will be open. Though one might argue that utilization
of these course management technologies are less egregious than intentional and blatant hiding
of information, the effect is nonetheless the same. As a result, this is a legitimate hurdle that
universities will have to face. Though the problem does exist, it is not difficult to overcome.
Universities can follow best practices from MIT and use their established model to deliver course
management services. This could also signal a change for the course management industry. If
Blackboard and webCafé’s major clients demand a course management system that is open, the
companies would be foolish not to deliver and lose their main business partners. So, in this way
OCW has the potential to revamp the course management and technology industry. In
considering these costs, universities should also factor in the savings from abandoning use of
systems such a Blackboard.

The most legitimate criticism of this paper focuses on a very pragmatic issue. Sure, top
40 universities can have OCW and see no change in enrollment and revenue, but how about
universities in the second or third tier? It is possible that second or third tier institutions could
view OCW as a tremendous opportunity. Finally, they would be able to compete with bigger and
more well-known schools based on substantive material and merit rather than unsubstantiated
claims to quality based on history or prestige. Taking this view, lower tiered institutions would
have a chance to level the playing field based on substance and quality, which could have
positive effects for enrollment. And realistically, there are just more degree-seeking students than
there is capacity among the top schools. For this simple reason, lower tier schools should not see
any noticeable declines in enrollment or revenue.

VI. Conclusion

This paper describes the current state of OCW in the United States and argues that the
premier institutions in the United States should act ethically by implementing OCW systems.
This conclusion is based on a rights and duties framework and utilitarianism. Having established
that the purpose of universities is to create and disseminate knowledge, establishing OCW
systems is a natural extension of the innate purpose of these institutions. This has been the
constant since the beginnings of higher education. Rather, the changing variable in recent years
has been robust technological growth that has eliminated the traditional constraints associated
with education, capacity and cost. With the internet, universities are able to leverage technology
to broadcast courseware to a worldwide audience at little or no cost. In fact, for universities that
act in the third mode of participation, opening courses could even result in costs savings. This is
a monumental change for the education industry, and as barriers are broken and innovative
mediums arise, methods must change so that they continue to align with the duties that
universities have as knowledge creators and disseminators.

From this analysis, a few pragmatic recommendations arise. The focus of this
investigation has been on preeminent U.S. institutions. This is because it is obvious that these
universities have the ability to implement OCW and can do so with little or no effect on revenues
 Zhu 7

(due to changes in enrollment). This is an extremely important point. As leaders in the higher
education realm, these universities should take the lead and show the world that this is a
sustainable model. Having a foundation and model for others to follow will be crucial in
reducing costs and changing the mentality that learning is constrained by capacity and costs. If
initiatives such as MIT’s foray into OCW can re-center the mentality towards education and
bring it into congruence with new technological capabilities, then the long-term implications of
such a change have the potential to be enormously positive. When people first hear about
implementing OCW, it feels right based on moral intuitionism, and as this paper proves, it feels
right is because it is the right thing to do.

Works Cited
 Zhu 8

ABOUT WEBCAST.BERKELEY. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2009, from webcast.berkeley:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/wp/faq/
d'Oliveira, C. (n.d.). Why Donate? Retrieved March 28, 2009, from MIT OCW:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/donate/invest/index.htm
Dunfee, T. W. (2006). Do Firms with Unique Competencies for Rescuing Victims of Human
Catastrophes Have Special Obligations? Corporate Responsibility and the AIDS Catastrophe in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Business Ethics Quarterly .
Hobbs, A. (n.d.). Purpose of the University. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from
http://www.math.tamu.edu/~arthur.hobbs/3b.html
Hockfield, S. (n.d.). President's Message. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from MIT OCW:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/president/index.htm
How We Calculate the Rankings. (2008, March 26). Retrieved March 7, 2009, from U.S. News
& World Report: Education: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-graduate-
schools/2008/03/26/how-we-do-the-numbers.html
MITOPENCOURSEWARE. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2009, from Site Statistics:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/about/stats/index.htm
Newmarch, J. (2001, June 4). First Monday. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Lessons from Open
Source: Intellectual Property and Courseware:
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/868/777
OpenCourseWare, M. (2006, June 5). 2005 Program Evaluation Findings Report. Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Retrieved from
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/global/05_Prog_Eval_Report_Final.pdf
The 'Classroom Category'. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2009, from The Baseline Scenario:
http://baselinescenario.com/category/classroom/
U.S. News & World Report. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2009, from Best Colleges 2009:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-search
Ethical Principles in Business. In M. G. Velasquez, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (pp.
90-92). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Wharton Tackles the Financial Crisis. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/alum_mag/issues/winter2009/wharton_now_8.html
Wicks, A., Freeman, E., Gilbert, D., & Werhane, P. (1987). A Note on Relativism. Darden
Business Publishing , 11.