Peter Sefton has a new post addressing two of the most common reasons faculty give him not to produce OCW. From the post:
In this post I want to mention my two favourite objections to going open, which come up every time I start talking (ranting?) about OCW and OERs at USQ [University of Southern Queensland].
As a graduate of the Purdue system I am appalled that Purdue is using OCW materials from MIT while offering no OCW itself but then it is Purdue and they tend to be money grubbing Republicans. My first argument for open education is that we all benefit from an educated population where ever we are. People who can afford a prestigious degree will get one and use it to their advantage. Those who can’t afford it will either become a burden on society or might they perchance take advantage of open education and eventually test out of some classes at a community college and perhpas be a productive member of society? Then there is always the the retired population who keeps its collective mind sharp through OCW even though it cannot get out to take classes on campus. Keeping them healthy and alert is a great savings to everyone as well. I for one intend to go to my local senior center and present the idea of small groups taking courses at UMASS Boston.