While there is some reason to be concerned about whether the government would commit summary execution of Snowden, I'd like to think that he would be able to return home and live, if not normally, then at least reasonably. Moreover, I think such an "accident" would raise a whole lot of red flags for watchdog groups. Let's be honest, if he dies of anything other than old age, people will reasonably suspect the government.

I believe fully believe that Snowden should be classified as a whistle-blower with respect to domestic spying. Those revelations were absolutely vital to the continued integrity of our democratic mechanism. However, I do believe he released some documents regarding foreign spying that he should not have. Given the size of the cache of leaked documents, it was, perhaps, inevitable that there would be some documents not directly applicable to the domestic spying issue. I suspect, though, that he knowingly released some of those foreign spying documents to apply pressure to the US government. This crossed the line, but it is understandable. He needs to not be held as completely blameless. As a result, I believe Snowden deserves:

1) Immediate repatriation to the US
2) Complete amnesty for all release of documents to journalistic sources, particularly with respect to domestic spying
3) A due process trial, preferably managed by a third-party watchdog, to confirm/disprove allegations of foreign funding behind Snowden.
4) Assuming an innocent ruling from 3, a minimal slap-on-the-wrist punishment for the release of classified documents not related to domestic spying. Maybe a couple years of house arrest?

I can sum up why Khan Academy is so popular in two words: mandatory attendance. To use the age old comparison, broccoli sucks when you are force fed it as a kid, but it can be quite good when you try it voluntarily as an adult. I haven't seen the recent vids, but when it was Khan by himself it was the same old chalk-and-talk you see in so many traditional classrooms, only with less precise terminology and no admitting you don't know the answer in front of the class. There's something to be said for what Khan is doing. It's rather like peer tutoring. It's a great supplement to teachers, but its no replacement. Much like Harry Potter is a great gateway to Lord of the Rings but not a replacement thereof.

Two thoughts come to mind here.

1) It's "liberating" in the same sense that being chemically castrated and color-blinded is "liberating" in Lois Lowry's The Giver. You are "liberated" from the onerous chore of responsibility for your own actions.

2) Oh, you know what, even though you've spent $100 bucks on every album by Blah Artist, he's now a bad influence on society. We, the corporations, will benevolently "liberate" you from such unwholesome thoughts. *287 files deleted*

You have hit the million dollar question in education, my friend. I suspect its a question that doesn't have a one-size-fits-all answer. Sadly, educational policy has long operated under the same-training-same-results mentality which is diametrically opposed to the differentiated instruction models that have slowly crossed into mainstream education from special education research. However, I agree that 10,000 hours from a college is unfeasible, even undesirable. In fact, I really don't think a degree makes you an expert. That being said, I think you have to admit that, in general, an hour under mentorship/teaching gets you more bang for your buck than trying to figure it out all by yourself. Granted, I'm assuming GOOD mentorship/teaching, which is a WHOLE other conversation.

Do yourself a huge favor. Get at least one of your degrees in math education as opposed to pure math the whole way up the ladder. If you go the pure math route, I think your fears are fairly well justified. Chalk-and-talk teaching is going the way of the dinosaurs. That's what the Khan Academy is for. Go learn some of the cutting-edge teaching techniques that are being developed and you'll have a skill set that no mere computer can replace.

While I concur that some of these do have interactive elements, many of them are of them are of the watch-this-video variety. The TED-Ed stuff which started this thread is a great example.

Thank you for making my point for me. Surgeons get paid for the cutting part, not the memorization part. Likewise, mathematicians get paid for designing new applications for mathematics, not just applying pre-existing formulas. Moreover, while the online courses you mention and similar ones for mathematics (like ALEKS) can be VERY good for memorization...IF AND ONLY IF you are a motivated learner to begin with. Only a real live teacher has ANY chance of changing the mind of a student who has a "When am I ever going to need to know this" mentality.

Simply put, passively watching a video is better than nothing and even better than tuning out in the middle of class. However, there is simply no replacement for hands-on experience. That's why you see all those cutting edge new charter schools that are opening up moving away from textbook-based learning to project-based learning. As a math teacher, I am 100% behind sites like this providing opportunities for people to engage in life-long learning. That being said, I simply don't believe you can become an expert anything simply by watching. The cognitive psychology research says you need something like 10,000 hours of practice to develop the automaticity of an expert. That is to say, do you want the surgeon who has to check the anatomy book before he cuts into you or the surgeon who practiced on cadavers so much he can find the place to cut with his eyes closed? THAT, my friend, is what the value of college is. The other key feature of college is that gives you a chance to see where the holes are in understanding/technology/methodology. Universities, especially at the graduate level, are really about preparing people to engage in innovation. Do some people have good ideas without college? Surely. Are even half of those ideas feasible or attainable without some serious training? I doubt it.

@SJHillman

I think there's few key flaws with your idea.

1) The idea that data is accurate

The ad clearly states that the margin of error is more than half the size of the scale. Basically flip a coin. If it's heads add 50, if it's tails subtract 50. That's so hideously inaccurate that it's not even worth calling data. Imagine using a similar technique in measuring the temperature outside. Let see...my thermometer says 30...*flip a coin* Wow! It's 80 degrees out in December. Heat wave!

2) Data is impartial

It's not hard to pick criteria that may have some statistical correlation to student achievement that are utterly beyond the teacher's control. Why should those affect their score directly? This formula just adds a whole lot of random numbers together, including "Student Characteristics." What does that even mean? I mean, maybe if they were calculating this number through a MANCOVA or some other powerful statistical method, I could see how it would be worthwhile to account for student's being poor or whatever. However this formula relies almost entirely on addition. What? Shouldn't the "Student Characteristics" for example be a multiplicative coefficient? No. This is clearly a formula without fairness in mind.

3) It can't hurt anyone.

Politicians have been looking for ANY excuse to badmouth teachers for DECADES. Despite the very clear claims that this method is "experimental," you know it won't be long before some member of congress goes "And look at the average teaching effectiveness in New York, we should cut their funding some more" if the numbers are artificially low, those number are going to be used politically.

Imagine there was some measure of say, likelihood of being a rapist based on similarly arbitrary criteria. If your score indicated a high likelihood that you were a rapist based upon the "fact" that two of your neighbors are rapists, would you want that "data" published?

The math behind this is totally bizarre. Twenty bucks a month for 5mbps or 60 bucks a month for 15mbps makes sense. Triple the bandwidth, triple the cost. However, add some some arbitrary all user cap of, say, 100GB per month:

5 mb/s = 300 mb/min = 18000 mb/hour = 2250 MB/hour = 2.2GB / hour.

So, about 45 hours of low speed internet for $20 dollars, but only 15ish hours of high speed internet for $60. You pay more to get less overall internet access! Only if triple bandwidth also implies triple cap does this make any sense whatsoever. Using this same logic, if you're one of the lucky few on a 50mbps connection, OF COURSE you're going to use ten times as much data as the person with 5mbps connection. Probably more, really, considering the person who wants the cheapest available internet probably doesn't use it to its full capacity. Someone needs to explain high school math to these companies. A little statistics, maybe a little calculus, and it wouldn't surprise you at all that only the very few people who buy the best internet use the most bandwidth. Gee, I wonder who's going to use more water, the single bedroom home or the big restaurant down the street?