Thread regarding 2U Inc. layoffs

Cal Berkeley

"In Jan 2023, I enrolled for a UXUI Design certificate program advertised by UC Berkeley (UCB) Extension Campus. Over the course of the first few weeks I realized the program was not run by credentialed teachers or established industry practitioners but rather by a cohort of Teaching Assistants without any significant UX industry experience or teacher training. When I sought to withdraw from this program, I learnt about the relationship between UC Berkeley-edX-2U. The only point of contact for certificate program students was the Student Success Manager at 2U who said since it was past the due date, I would lose my entire payment of $13,000 by withdrawing. On February 13, 2023 I made an appeal to withdraw from this program to the UCB Extension Campus. The university never acknowledged or responded to my email that detailed substandard teaching. Over the course of 24 weeks I observed the following:

  1. Students had no access to any software (they used free versionspurchased subscriptions on their own), collaboration tools, library access. The course slides referred to Medium blogs and free content in the public domain. It was a resource-poor educational environment
  2. The course of 50 adult students was led by an industry practitioner who worked at Google as a UX content designer and was also a voice artist. He had no experience in teaching, no experience in UX Research, Coding, and other parts of curriculum. He was not teaching a course but performing, leading, and entertaining by reading large slide decks prepared by 2U's instructional designers. This course lead did not supervise any student projects, perform any grading, and would not answer specific technical questions when pointedly asked.
  3. The everyday tasks of grading, supervising, approving project proposals, and resolving student concerns were handled by a cohort of 5-6 Teaching Assistants who had no background in teaching, no teaching credentials, many were graphic designers, visual artists, rookie coders who were themselves trying to break into the UX field as designers and developers. Unsurprisingly, several TAs were recent graduates of 2U's certificate programs focused on Front-end Coding, UXUI Design. The staffing of this certificate program was done by hiring and employing ill-equipped Teaching Assistants at a minimum wage. There was no pedagogy or sound instruction informing this course, rather there was an abundance of templates for everything from research, design, coding and most students relied on those learning aids till the very end. This course did not teach foundational concepts and technical concepts in any aspect of UX or had any rigor. The emphasis was on learning industry jargon, storytelling, and presentation skills.
  4. The Student Success Manager (SSM) was the only point of contact beyond the instructional team. This SSM did not have an undergraduate degree, no experience in higher education, no familiarity in norms of student confidentiality. Her background was in retail.
  5. Non-anonymized forced weekly survey: Each week all students were forced to respond to a weekly survey that focused on their perception of the instructional team. There was no option to opt-out of this survey and the student responses were not anonymized. The survey results were released right away to the lead instructor who occasionally addressed responses in class meetings. Students did not know how and where this data would be stored and used. I believe this was a part Other-Other Update"
by
| 1336 views | | 5 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1p5aMdLy

5 replies (most recent on top)

This is my shocked face •_• ...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gxak+1p5aMdLy

These real accounts and experiences have been so helpful! This company's leadership is so adept in their ability to whitewash, isolate, corner and punish (first by labeling you a troublemaker and then eventually by way of firing) those who question aspects of the business practices. They are extremely skillful at making you believe that they/it's all good, and therefore, you are the one who's not thinking with innovation or with the student's best interest in mind.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1dqj+1p5aMdLy

So I was an instructor in the Coding Bootcamp and worked supporting the curriculum.

So, I can tell you a few things.

  1. The curriculum designers are often not given access to tools/paid software either. Instead, they rarely had the tools to do their jobs. Instead, they were told to rely on freeware and trial resources as well. This is, of course, ridiculous, but don't blame the curriculum developers. They were trying to do the best they could with what they happened to have available to them. The fault here lies with 2U woefully under-allocating resources to the curriculum because it is really about sales, not learning.
  2. There is very little instructor training. Instructors are given a script prepared by the woefully under-resourced curriculum developers and told to make it work. Instructors also are not paid that well to teach, so they have no incentive to put more into it than showing up. The fact 2U actually has some really great instructors is a reflection of the fact that those people went WELL beyond what they should have done based on how they were treated.
  3. The whole grading thing is a mess. In college how you interact and learn from your professors is a result of having them see your individual work. Grading is based on a rigid rubric in 2U courses and done by a person who does not always have all that much more experience than the person learning. This is a dirty secret of the program. But 2U would never pay instructors their hourly salary to grade 50 assignments. For my last cohort, they had actually moved to central grading (again in coding) where some anonymous TA-level person graded your work. It was a mess for my students.
  4. Some of the SSM managers are awesome but they are under a lot of pressure to be more like salespeople than support actual student learning. I always felt bad for my SSM because they were put under such pressure to keep students enrolled even if it clearly was not a good fit. Again, this is a problem of the business model, not the individuals, for the most part.
  5. I hate those surveys! The reason the instructor responded was because at least when I was there, we were under a ton of pressure to keep the KPIs up no matter what. No never mind that the learners were not given the resources to succeed, the curriculum was outdated, the examples didn't work, the goal was simply to make sure that the learners were happy enough to keep the ratings up.

So, it wasn't just the learners who were duped. The curriculum engineers were trying but were not given the tools for their jobs. The instructor was recruited and not given the resources (or pay) to do more than read off a script or the support to grow in the role. The students were not given individualized feedback, which is essential for growth. And the SSM was just always in a rock in a hard place trying to act like the focus was education when it was really about sales and keeping up KPIs from those forced surveys.

And 50 people in a single class with one instructor? That is just a clear money grab. I am sorry you had this experience. In fact, I am sorry we ALL had this experience.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kfr+1p5aMdLy

From FTC FOIA-2023-01832

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @piw+1p5aMdLy

Wow...just, Wow!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dgh+1p5aMdLy

Post a reply

: