Coursera to combine with Udemy

Merger, consolidation, and capitalism

• Many see the Coursera–Udemy deal as part of a long-running trend toward consolidation in nearly every industry, driven by capitalism and weak regulation rather than AI specifically.
• Several predict the usual post‑merger pattern: long integration slog, loss of key people, and a worse user experience, with less competition and higher prices.
• A minority view: both companies were already struggling and this is more of a survival move than a power grab.

MOOCs’ lost promise and platform “enshittification”

• Early MOOCs (especially “real recorded university lectures”) are widely remembered as life‑changing and higher‑quality than much of today’s university teaching.
• Over time, Coursera/Udemy are seen as having:
  • Chased corporate training and certifications,
  • Flooded the catalog with lower‑effort courses,
  • Optimized for sales, engagement, and “checkbox” value rather than learning.
• YouTube, MIT OpenCourseWare, and similar free resources are seen as the real winners; several lament that unique early MOOC courses vanished or were paywalled.

Certificates, universities, and value

• Many argue MOOC certificates have little labor‑market value compared with traditional degrees, especially during layoffs, so individuals and employers aren’t willing to pay much.
• Others counter that online offerings still excel in “time to knowledge” and flexibility, especially as a way to get approved training done faster than formal in‑person courses.
• There’s skepticism that universities are “dead”; instead MOOCs have settled into a niche: narrow skills, self‑motivated learners, and corporate compliance training.

Learning effectiveness: video, practice, and completion

• Strong consensus: watching videos alone is a poor way to truly learn; practice, interaction, and problem‑solving matter far more.
• Completion rates are described as extremely low (single‑digit percentages), with many people never starting purchased courses; platforms exploit the “dopamine” of buying self‑improvement.
• Some prefer text over video; platforms are criticized for optimizing video for engagement, not pedagogy.

LLMs vs courses

• Opinions split sharply:
  • Pro‑LLM: great as tutors, syllabus designers, and assistants; can turn lectures into flashcards, provide adaptive explanations, and may soon auto‑generate much course content.
  • Skeptical: hallucinations and shallow treatment make them unsafe as primary teachers unless you already know enough to verify; they’re better for fact‑checkable tasks or with strong grounding materials.
• Several argue LLMs plus open materials could be a better “next‑gen MOOC” than today’s centralized course marketplaces.

Personal experiences and nostalgia

• Many share specific courses that profoundly impacted their careers or filled gaps after dropping out or lacking access to formal education.
• Instructors report Udemy’s opaque promotion algorithms, shifting incentives, and declining revenues, prompting them to build their own sites.
• Overall mood: mix of nostalgia for the optimistic 2012 MOOC era, disappointment in commercial drift, and cautious curiosity about AI‑driven reinvention of online learning.