Sjsu Employee Profile: Fill & Download for Free

An often found consequence of the 'Build first - Monetize later' mantra is that a business model and revenue stream develops in an innovative way that has not yet been discovered. This was the case with the most high profile 'Build first - Monetize later' company, Google, who developed a completely new monitorization with Adsense.Having said that, the following extract https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/400864-coursera-fully-executed-agreement.html#document/p40 sourced from the agreement between Coursera and a university, outlines 8 possible monetization strategies that these for-profit technological companies could adopt:Certification - students pay money to receieve a certification after they have achieved competency from their free learning. (i.e. a badge or pdf document provided by a university or from a recognised badging system)Authentic assessment - students pay money to have their learning assessed and certified at a physical testing site. i.e. assessment centersRecruitment - companies pay money to access student course results to identify potential employees that match the company's recruitment needs.Screening - companies and educational institutions pay money to gain access to student records to verify that a level of knowledge or expertise has been attained. This would allow access to the company's recruitment processes or ensure a university course acceptance.Human tutoring - students pay a tutor to help them achieve the desired learning outcomes from the free courses.Corporate learning - companies pay money to get customized courses using the free content and to access special features that help their employees gain necessary skills.Sponsorship - sponsors pay money to have their appropriate advertising appear beside course materials. (i.e. textbook publishers)Tuition fees - students pay tuition fees for advanced level learning (afer completing the free introductory course) or gaining specialised skills relating to high paying jobs.Sustainability is not assured with these organisations until they can find an economic model that rewards all stakeholders and resource investors at a comparative level with other investment offers in our society. So, for the chance to make learning accessible to all and to usher in a second industrial revolution or even neo-renascence period, I offer a few more income models that I think the economic hard-heads would be happy to see included in the 'free' online education startup business models:Freemium - Where you split the learning options along the lines of Bloom's Taxonomy and make free those courses that target "Knowledge & Understanding" learning outcomes but charge a premium for those follow-on courses that target higher cognitive skills like "Applying, Analyzing, Synthesizing, Evaluating and Creating". The cost of premium courses would have a link to improving career and income prospects for the learners so they would have a clear cost/benefit understanding of the return on the investment in their learning, making the payment choice more acceptable.Value-add - Where you separate the knowledge from worked examples and activities so you can give away all the knowledge for free but learners wanting a greater understanding of how the knowledge could be applied and to ensure that learning had taken place would need to download a paid for eBook that contained worked examples, activities and answers to the activities. The free course could mention the eBook as milestones to complete in the learning process.Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) sponsorship - Corporations donate money to the MOOC that helps learners attain a higher education as it equally helps the corporation to demonstrate their CSR. Corporations could set eligibility criteria for their donation that secured some increased value for the brand. i.e. only sponsoring learners from a geographic location, ethnic group, social status or industry work preference. To get the best 'bangs for bucks' with this model, course costs per learner would need to be priced low (less than $100). With the expected volumes in online learning this price can deliver a profitable model for the MOOC as well as allow the corporate brand to speak of the more emotive 'number of students educated' statistic, rather than the less impressive and objective 'money spent' one.UPDATE:Purchase of content and assessment by another University - On the 29 October Antioch University based in Los Angeles announced that it's the "first US institution to offer credit for MOOC-learning through Coursera" that will count toward its four-year bachelor's degree. This creates an additional model for revenue with third-party institution buying permission to incorporate a MOOC into its curriculum. More here http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/29/coursera-strikes-mooc-licensing-deal-antioch-universityAmerican Council on Education, the leading umbrella group for higher education, and Coursera, a Silicon Valley MOOC provider, announced a pilot project to determine whether some free online courses are similar enough to traditional college courses that they should be eligible for credit.Free Online Courses to Be Evaluated for Possible College Credit“Udacity is thrilled to announce a partnership with San Jose State University to pilot three courses—Visualizing Intermediate Algebra, College Algebra, and Elementary Statistics—available online at an affordable tuition rate and for college credit. This is the first time a MOOC has been offered for credit and purely online.” Udacity/SJSU Partnership (with images, tweets) · Udacity

Worth the stress of attending to the school or getting into the school?If the question is related to getting into the school, you have to remember that to be a competitive candidate to any top school in the US you will have to face some stressful times. Probably it is easier to get into some Ivies (Dartmouth, Cornell, and Brown) than into specific programs at Stanford, MIT, Caltech, U Chicago, or even USC (I’m looking at you, graduate programs in the School of Cinematic Arts). If you don’t enjoy the things that you do to get an admission to the school, for example taking extra classes — and studying really hard for them —, participating in extracurricular activities, and trying to differentiate yourself from the pack of applicants, then the Ivies and the majority of top universities might not be the best place for you.This is not necessarily a demerit: each person has different priorities, values, and styles. If you like analyzing sports and writing much more than studying the extra material for AP Calculus 3, a school like Ohio State or University of Florida would fit your profile much better than Harvard or Penn ever could. If you are really into basic science, heavy on Mathematics and theoretical Physics, but hates extracurricular things that are not science-related, Caltech would be a dream place, while Brown would drain your soul. If you are more interested in practical experiences and be immersed in a place that is the mecca of technology, San Jose State University would fit much better than any Ivy (and there are way more SJSU graduates in Silicon Valley than Columbia ones).And assess what you want for your career! Sometimes you’d rather not put yourself on the stress of going to an Ivy at all. For someone who wants to be a private lawyer in Louisiana, it might be much more interesting attending to Tulane and LSU to be immersed in the civil law system than studying everything common law related. If you want to be a marine biologist, UCSD is a much better choice than Cornell.So, assess yourself: what are your priorities? Are you comfortable with doing the things that are required to get into an Ivy? Does your profile fit with their intended student pool? What you want to do for living rests in the realm of what the Ivies are good for? If not, that is not a problem. You can get an excellent education somewhere else and be very successful, maybe even more than the average Ivy graduate.If your question is related to attending to the school and what you need to do to get good grades, then the answer is “mixed”. For some things, it is much better to big a big fish in a small pond. You can shine more, get more personalized attention from your faculty, and even have better employment opportunities after graduation without the debt that you would incur going to an Ivy.Example: if you are interested in research, sometimes going to a school where the professor will let you have your own (small) project as an undergrad — instead of being a minion to a postdoc/senior graduate student — might be way more interesting and develop more personal qualities. Instead of being the 12th author in a paper that you collaborated with, you could be the first author in a smaller publication, but of your own making. And the recommendation letter from your mentor would be significantly better than that from “a big name” from an Ivy who can only say platitudes about you. Believe me, professors in admission committees for graduate school know how to assess/evaluate this.Example 2: SJSU students are already in the Silicon Valley. For them, it is way easier to find internship opportunities in tech companies even during Spring/Fall semesters. On the other hand, an Ivy student necessarily would have to relocate, changing which type of jobs s/he would be interested in getting, how long s/he would be available for the employment, etc. Who is more likely to be an employee at Google: an excellent CS/CEng student from SJSU or an average Princeton CS?But, you have to put an effort to be a big fish! If the Ivy students who are competing with you (for a job/grad school spot/any other opportunity) are learning Advanced Statistics and Analysis in their sophomore year, you’d better work twice as hard to be at the same level if not during your sophomore year, at least by your junior year. So, maybe it will be even more stressful because you’d have to study more than what they are doing, but this would definitely make you a more complete/better student. If you don’t want the stress of having to study too hard, then no Ivies nor any other good school will be a great environment for you (or any competitive career).The advantage here is that you can have a different pace than the Ivy students and still shine. If it takes you 3 hours to learn a topic that for some of them would take only 45 minutes, you wouldn’t be mismatched — and therefore depreciated. But you have to put an effort and learn the damn thing if you want to compete with them!Lastly, if you are not an Ivy student (the same is valid for Stanford, Caltech, MIT, and any other big schools), you will give up the networking that those schools provide. Sometimes, the network’s worth is much more important than the piece of paper that you will receive by the end of your studies. Sometimes it is not. For an excellent student, the drawbacks of not having the network can be completely compensated with quality of work and grit.So, the choice is yours. Do a self-assessment. Understand your priorities and what you are willing to sacrifice to achieve your end goal. Very often, the stress in a school is much more related to misplaced judgment when choosing where to attend to than for intrinsic reasons at the school.

Hello I read your post. That is simply not true, I hate to tell you your parents are wrong, But,,,,,,,,,. I can tell you this, Apple inc. who I believe is the number 1 tech corporation in our country (at least in terms of company profile and business), recruits the majority of their interns from SJSU, or at least they did last year according to Dice News. So that is definitely a positive, or check mark in the Pros column. Now whether or not you graduate, or become employed by a major tech firm is: "who knows" at this point. You might ending meeting and hooking up with a group of people while at San Jose State and creating a multi million dollar firm!! Which for you, as an early employee or founder, would mean you should make more money than you ever could at any other firm