The Triple Failure of 2U, EdX, and Axim
The collapse of 2U after its $800M purchase of edX has reignited scrutiny of how elite universities, for-profit edtech firms, and nonprofits intersect in the MOOC economy. Commenters debate whether Harvard and MIT effectively “made off like bandits” by selling edX’s brand and assets, the ethics and mechanics of nonprofit asset sales, and why most online learning has shifted from open, university-style education toward job-focused credentials. Many see lasting value in open platforms like Open edX and high-quality MOOCs, but argue that economic incentives, prestige dynamics, and the high cost of meaningful assessment and feedback have undermined the original promise of free or low-cost online higher education.
Sale of edX and nonprofit mechanics
- edX, originally a nonprofit backed by major universities, sold its brand and most assets for ~$800M to 2U; the original entity was renamed and continues as a new nonprofit (Axim).
- Commenters clarify that nonprofits typically sell assets, not the organization itself; proceeds must still be used for the charitable mission.
- Some see the sale as universities “making off like bandits” after investing far less than the sale price; others argue it’s legitimate mission-aligned capital raising.
Perceptions of 2U and the $800M “mistake”
- Many frame the acquisition as 2U’s or its lenders’ costly error, not Harvard/MIT’s.
- Former employees and interviewees describe 2U as incompetent, sales-driven, and politically toxic.
- Several suggest due diligence was poor, including around platform IP and course content rights.
Axim and Open edX’s future
- Some criticize Axim as a passive grant-giver “sitting on” most of the cash; others say this is too harsh without detailed spending data.
- An Open edX governance member stresses that Axim is actively funding and coordinating major open-source development, with fewer engineers but better focus now that the roadmap isn’t tied to edX.org.
- There’s speculation and mild hope that Axim could repurchase edX cheaply in bankruptcy and reinvest in open content.
Value and shortcomings of MOOCs
- Many recall early edX/Coursera courses as transformative, especially high-quality STEM offerings; MOOCs are seen as a major public good.
- Critiques: overreliance on multiple choice and trivial coding tasks, weak feedback, watered-down rigor compared to on-campus versions, and archived/not-updated content.
- MOOCs are perceived as drifting toward job-training microcredentials rather than broad, curiosity-driven education; some want affordable paths to real degrees in humanities and math.
- Others argue motivated learners can already get better learning from books, communities, and targeted online resources, with MOOCs mainly useful for credentials.
Economics, prestige, and access
- Selective universities are seen as guarding scarcity and prestige; offering cheap MOOC degrees would dilute their brands.
- Discussion contrasts community colleges, state programs, and international “free tuition” systems as alternative models, but notes trade-offs in gatekeeping, bureaucracy, and “waste.”
- Some view unpaid study as subsidized hobbies; others argue that curiosity-driven learning is a core social good.
Online learning quality and design
- Online-only degrees are reported to work better for motivated adults and small seminars; harder for large intro cohorts where engagement drops.
- Key bottlenecks are human grading, anti-cheating measures, and personalized help; MOOCs rarely scale these well.
- Several see potential in better community features and possibly AI-assisted tutoring and grading, but not as a panacea.
Equity and accessibility
- Concerns raised about MOOC platforms being “very white” despite diversity rhetoric.
- Separate thread highlights that many MOOCs lack proper accessibility for blind and visually impaired learners, reinforcing a digital divide.