Just added these to the list on Class Central(http://www.class-central.com). With these and the addition of new Coursera courses last week, the single page site has grown really long.
What would you choose ? MIT's 6.00x or Hardvard's CS50x ?
MIT's one looks more mathematical oriented, and probably a bit more difficult but better quality (I've seen some of the Python videos of MIT's OpenCourseWare)
CS50 looks more "fast paced" as it teaches you several paradigms, but I'd rather learn more C than Python.
I can't make up my mind. I've programmed a bit, in Python, C and now a bit of C++ (Also a bit of Haskell) but I never took any kind of classes nor studied things like Algorithms or Data Structures in deep.
CS50 doesn't just do C - it's more of a 'survey' through the CS landscape. Students start off with Scratch before diving into C, and take detours into PHP, JavaScript, as well as HTML.
It's a very popular course, and the majority of students are taking it as an elective. It doesn't go into particular depth with regards to algorithms or data structures, so if you're looking to learn more than just the basics (binary search, trees, etc) it probably isn't for you. It has a good reputation on-campus, and is one of the most popular classes. It's also already got an established distance education component, which is one reason why it's being offered as one of the first edX courses.
I have only taken CS50, so I wouldn't want to comment on MIT's offering, but hopefully that will help you out! If anyone had any questions about the course I can try and answer them - the course hasn't changed substantially since I took it.
At MIT, 6.00 is an introductory course. Most EECS majors do not take it. It's intended for people interested in EECS but who do not have much prior experience. It is in no way an easy course though---it's fast paced and covers a large amount of material. The only thing "introductory" is the minimal background assumed.
If you're hoping to learn how to code in Python then beware MIT's 6.00x (assuming it is similar to its old MIT OpenCourseware class). The prof take Python and writes it like it is Java, using getters and setters in entirely unidiomatic ways instead of using Python's @property decorators, etc. Good course for the CS background, but forget everything you learn about Python from the class.
6.00x looks more theoretical and might teach you more computer science.
CS50x looks less theoretical and more of a survey of different programming languages and patterns. It's a good "get up and running in several different ways" class.
This is slightly misleading, because they are both in reality one semester courses when taught on-campus - I would guess that CS50X will be at a slightly slower pace than 6.00X.
If you have a full time job, and any pre-existing side projects at all, that is not practical advice. Even if that isn't the case, some people would rather just do one for whatever reason. Everyone has that right.
To answer parent's original question: I'm going with Harvard's. I started watching the open courseware lectures from MIT's a while ago, and though Eric Grimson was intelligent and clear, he just couldn't hold my attention.
You might be surprised that the synergy provided by doing both accelerates your learning. The first classes might take longer but you'll end up doing later assignments much more quickly than doing either alone.
Berkeley's presence on both coursera and EdX is an interesting wrinkle -- they've got a quote in another article suggesting they can't control where their professors to decide to put their content:
“Ultimately, our faculty will decide where they want to put courses up online, but we find that edX has values and methodologies very closely aligned with ours at Berkeley, so our institutional preference would be to use edX,” said Robert J. Birgeneau, the chancellor of Berkeley.
I was a bit surprised to see Berkeley as well. It was pitched as such a MIT & Harvard collaboration that I didn't get the sense other schools would be involved this early on. I'm glad they are offering classes here too though, EdX seems much more quality vs quantity.
Too much focus on Computer Science in my opinion. Udacity already covers CS in detail. The only interesting bit is the introductory chemics course, a focus on physics, chemics, biology and engineering could have set edx apart from udacity.
A lot of the computer science classes already have a lot of material in a ready to go digital format so it's easier to get them online. The others will follow, but it's harder to convert all the material from a "brick and mortar" class to a digital class of the same quality. There also might be a perceived need or demand for computer science classes.
I took CS188 (the AI course) recently and it was really great. Dan Klein is easily one of the favorite CS professors among the students--everyone really loves his class. He is, critically, a great educator. And, naturally, great fun. The lectures were certainly fun to attend even when the material was relatively easy.
The online version only has half the material. However, this makes sense; the class is naturally divided into two parts. The first half was focused more on AI and search problems and the second part was more about machine learning. I suspect the only reason it is one class is because it has to fit in the semester system. Online, naturally, it's liberated from this constraint.
Anyhow, I definitely recommend this for anyone interested in AI. And even if you're not interested in the field as much, it's a fun course and only lasts three months.
edX's software seems much higher quality than Coursera's at this point, so I can see why Berkeley would want to port their course to work on that platform as well.
(My opinion based on having done the MITx Circuits & Electronics, and Game Theory and Cryptography from Coursera.)
To expand on that, the for-profit Coursera seems like a great partner for universities at the moment, but in the future, if they become a force, a platform with millions of students, their profit interest and the universities' interests could begin to diverge.
Hopefully, the various platforms (Coursera, edX, Udacity) play nice together, i.e., it's only a small amount of work to setup the same course content on a new platform.
> Hopefully, the various platforms (Coursera, edX, Udacity) play nice together, i.e., it's only a small amount of work to setup the same course content on a new platform.
As Google SREs say: Hope is not a strategy.
(Especially when you're hoping against the economic interests of the players involved.)
