Comment by kelnos
10 hours ago
A friend who teaches at MIT said they were hit by this. I found it ironic and a little sad that a place like MIT doesn't have an IT staff that can maintain their own on-prem solutions for things like this.
But it turns out that MIT used to have their own homegrown system, and recently switched to Canvas. Bet they're regretting that now.
The build vs. buy decision seems to have swung very hard toward buy in the last decade, and I think that's a shame. Yes, orgs need to focus on their core competency, and sometimes that means outsourcing things that aren't core competencies to third parties. But there are always downsides.
Homegrown systems are expensive to maintain and usually still fail to match up to the commercial options available at this point. LMS's are also just really complicated pieces of software. I worked on my university's own version as an undergrad.
There is no need to reinvent any wheels by making a homegrown LMS. Moodle exists and is completely open source. Lots of large institutions use it. Even in the case that you need to do something really weird with it that isn't solved by one of the many plugins that exist, you're already 90% of the way there with its base platform, and only 10% remaining for DIY software development.
> LMS's are also just really complicated pieces of software
it's MIT.
But it’s not like MIT gains anything from rolling their own LMS.
1 reply →
Maintaining an LMS doesn't seem like a good use of time. You should almost always outsource pieces that aren't your core business.
Computer science != software engineering.
I think the current situation shows that outsourcing is also expensive. The costs are just different or not always clear up front.
… so?
My highschool, for a while, had a website, which was eventually replaces by a large corporate CMS. Was the website as complicated or complex as the CMS? No, you would have needed to know HTML to publish to it. The CMS was no doubt "more user friendly", I suppose.
But … the original site had a soul. It was unique to the school. There was a student directory! All lost, because the CMS meant utter standardization between all the schools using it (their pages were all identical, except for each got like a different picture of the school as the banner at the top) and the CMS did not do directory anything.
Of course, the directory largely didn't matter in the end. (This was when you needed people's landlines! Quite laughable nowadays…) But it was still sad to see it lost, and several of us students worked on it, which provided us with some early real-world experience.
A large number of my college professors published their own sites, too, where they'd put their lecture notes, homework, etc. I loved those far more than I loved "Canvas" or whatever the ugly LMS we used was.
MIT has an incredible IT staff and they do some cool stuff. Every time I interact with any other organizations IT stuff I find it inferior. They just aren’t super big from what I gathered and probably don’t want to do the incredibly boring work of an LMS.
The one they had before Canvas was very very inadequate.
edit: also some of the more popular cs classes have custom websites and don’t really use canvas, but that isn’t the centralized IT department’s doing.
I started my tech career in EDU. I’m not at all surprised.
IT staff who are ambitious and talented don’t last long in education. The pay is very low compared to industry. Where I worked, you could retire with a comfortable pension after a number of service years, so the IT staff outsourced as much as possible so they needed to take zero risks to their nest egg. Blame all the problems on the consultants and do as little as possible.
It’s literally where dreams go to die.
MIT is known for the brilliant professors and students but at the end of the day, running a university is pretty standard stuff. They don’t need a genius rockstar to admin the courseware servers.
CYA is a powerful drug for the C Suite