The Triple Failure of 2U, EdX, and Axim

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.