This would be the paragraph that needs expansion, in the form of a phrase or two of expansion around each “this” —
Serious as this situation is, to take it as a fait accompli whose remedy will be MOOCs is premature. Especially in view of the expense involved in creating a good MOOC, my strong recommendation is to push back against the defunding and dismantling of our institutions rather than invent strategies for accommodation to this new reality, or accept corporatization as the only viable solution.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Revised:
III
The focus on MOOCs as a way of extending the resources of our most privileged institutions to those living far from any institution helps to justify the work put into the creation of these courses, but also to drive out of sight the hundreds of thousands of students who have enrolled in college only to find that their institutions are being defunded and dismantled at a furious pace.
Serious as the current situation is, to take it as a fait accompli whose remedy will be MOOCs and other corporate solutions is premature. Focus groups and “town hall” meetings at our universities may urge us to leave the past behind, invent strategies for accommodation or survival, and accept corporatization as the only viable solution to the funding crisis, but the interest venture capital takes in us should indicate that we still have assets worth saving. In fact, we are assets worth saving. We should push back against the defunding and dismantling of our institutions.
The discussion about the need to extend high quality education to people “shut out” of traditional universities that emanates from some very privileged institutions also contains elements of liberal guilt and naïvété. It overlooks the students at my institution, and at others like mine, who are already underserved. Should we ask them to sustain additional financial pressure and reduction of programs, while we offer MOOCs to students elsewhere? In almost every discussion of pedagogy I have with colleagues out of state, I discover that they assume an easy availability of equipment, materials and programs faculty and students at my institution cannot count upon. Nonetheless we do have robust distance learning programs for those who cannot travel to our campus, and we are expanding our online offerings. We do not lecture from stale textbooks. Our course websites are well administered, and most courses are richly enhanced with a variety of media. Colleagues from around the country give guest lectures, in person and by Skype. Much more than we need Udacity or Coursera we need, not in any particular order:
a. For the library: acquisitions, as there are fields in which we own no materials from the present century, and continued maintenance of all current subscriptions.
b. For study abroad: expanded programs, office support for these, and also locally based financial aid supplements since we are utterly dependent upon Federal scholarships, which are inadequate.
c. Smart classrooms: so we can access the Internet and use other a/v materials in all courses, without having to apply ahead of time for use of a special room on a special day.
d. FTEs, so students are not taught by a patchwork of adjuncts, and tenure-track lines, so that students can be taught by experts currently engaged in research.
e. Salaries and benefits adequate to recruit and retain quality faculty. At present we only contribute 1.5% of salary to retirement funds of new hires. With the lack of raises since 2008, instructors are now teaching up to seven courses per term so as to make ends meet. This cannot fail to have an impact on the quality of instruction.
f. Restoration of regular sabbaticals, summer salary support, research and travel funding, and funds for the acquisition of books and other research and teaching materials. These, it should be noted, are not luxuries, but essentials if we are to maintain and enhance quality teaching and learning, or research.
One reason it is important to articulate needs clearly is that this exercise reminds us of what we lack, or have already renounced. Could I serve unserved students worldwide by offering a MOOC? Yes, and it would be far better than the MOOC I took this summer. It would be “technological” and “innovative.” It might get me into the faculty spotlight section of our college newsletter. But I will better serve the community I was hired to serve if I focus on the list above.
Or where indicated, these three paragraphs:
Serious as the current situation is, to take it as a fait accompli whose remedy will be MOOCs and other corporate solutions is premature. Focus groups and “town hall” meetings at our universities may urge us to leave the past behind, invent strategies for accommodation or survival, and accept corporatization as the only viable solution to the funding crisis, but the interest venture capital takes in us should indicate that we still have assets worth saving. In fact, we are assets worth saving. We should push back against the defunding and dismantling of our institutions.
The discussion about the need to extend high quality education to people “shut out” of traditional universities that emanates from some very privileged institutions also contains elements of liberal guilt and naïvété. It overlooks students at my institution, and at others like mine, who are already underserved.
When we offer MOOCs, we generate cash for our corporate backers and for our institutions, and offer educational opportunities to people worldwide who speak the language in which the MOOC is taught, and who have fast Internet connections. But when my own institution is defunded, and our students are asked to pay more for less, should we really ask them to spend tuition dollars to participate in untested MOOCs that generate profit for Internet startups, and to sustain programs at schools where they have no participation beyond the MOOC?