I am not sure that MITx misrepresents these courses as being "for the masses" or for the novices and they obviously can create the online introductory material ("CS-101") but that was not their intent, but it is a good demonstration of what is possible to do - technologically - with online education.
edX is supposed to be different in nature and purpose, but it doesn't have all the pieces of actual "formal education" either.
These are mostly the demos for now, but they show what the "future" may look like and what the marketplace can adopt; e.g., there are probably not too many non-online "traffic schools" left in the U.S., when only 10 years ago it was probably rare to find a "court-accredited" online school where the course and the test can be taken for the traffic tickets.
And if the likes of MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Wharton/UPenn et al won't make those available to fill the actual full curriculum, this will only open the door to "smaller" colleges to fill the void and become more relevant than just becoming places where the "lab and hands-on" work will be done and the tests will be taken but not much more.
The entire idea is that once online education becomes accepted as a way of getting accredited education and degrees, it will open the entire field to competition where some universities can leverage their well known names and reputations for usually expensive and elitist "quality education" to grab substantial market share in much less expensive and more egalitarian online education, rather than cede the market to the "periphery" - "... the market may well determine that it is more attractive to serve many students at a very low cost than to serve a few students at a very high cost."
With every new disrupting technological advance - such as Internet - there is always a question for the entrenched - to oppose the technology and try to stand in the way of it (usually using the government and "laws" the way music industry and DRMA tried to deal with digital music and P2P/torrent tech) or to be in the forefront of the technology and jump in front of the parade to become leaders and grab market share (the way Apple reinvented itself with iPod an iTunes).
Here are some interesting views from four "visionaries" on the availability and fiscal realities of college education as it exists today (not online, but relevant to the subject discussed).
From Do Too Many Young People Go to College? - WSJ, by Lauren Weber, 2012 June 21
Second, the reality is that at least 40% of full-time students entering four-year programs fail to have their degree in six years, and the dropout rate is even greater among lower-income students. There are vast numbers of universities where the four-year college graduation rate is less than 30%. Third, the biggest problem is that we are turning out vastly more college graduates than there are jobs in the relatively high-paying managerial, technical and professional occupations to which most college graduates traditionally have gravitated. Do you really need a chemistry degree to make a good martini? Roughly one of three college graduates is in jobs the Labor Department says require less than a bachelor's degree. ..... < snip > ..... MR. O'NEILL: The most powerful driver of economic growth is tech innovation. And one drag on innovation is college debt, of which there is nearly $1 trillion outstanding. ..... If college were really a more valuable way to spend time than jobs, then diplomas would be an afterthought. Going to college for two years would earn exactly half the return of four years, and smart investors would double or triple their return by going to college for eight or 12 years rather than wasting their time working. ..... < snip > ..... MR. O'NEILL: Sandy and Vivek observe that some talented people aren't good fits for the industrial classroom-lecture experience of K-12 schooling. We shouldn't assume that they will enjoy the classroom-lecture experience of college. Like many smart and successful people, they might learn better by reading and exploring on their own and with the guidance of mentors — to say nothing of actually doing things. To ask 'How do we decide who goes to college?' collectivizes a decision no one should make for anyone else. ..... < snip > < snip > ..... DR. VEDDER: First, the proportion of society's resources going to fund higher education has tripled over the past half-century, and tuition costs are rising significantly faster than inflation.
I think my use of the phrase “for the masses” was probably a poor choice. What I meant to say was that the MIT online courses were not structured in a way that would enable worthy students (who are less than MIT caliber) to get through the course. Keeping the material ‘elite’ limits the effective scope of these initiatives.
I teach university level computer science and also don’t believe everyone should go to college. As I’ve said before, my own observation is that 1/3 of the students currently in college definitely belong there, the bottom 1/3 don’t belong there, and the middle 1/3 might belong there if they decided to apply themselves. Unfortunately, many faculty DO want everyone to go to college to ensure their job security. They want the asses in seats, even if those kids have a high probability of washing out.
As far as online eduction, its really hard to overstate how undisciplined & lazymany college students are. The truth is that online courses actually require MORE discipline on the part of the student. This is because it is that much easier for most of them to ignore—out of sight, out of mind. For this reason, I think online courses might be a poor match for them.
The other factor is making sure that they are the ones doing the work. That is hard enough to ensure even in a Brick and Mortar classroom setting. There are some innovations that try to minimize cheating/plagarism (like biometric scanning and indiviudally encoding downloaded templates for each student to complete). These may make it harder to cheat, but not impossible.