It seems like they have a chicken and egg problem. If the courses aren't valuable aside from the benefits of learning (which can be accomplished through other means), then why bother completing them? Meanwhile, it's hard to take the courses seriously when only 5% of the enrollment finishes the course.
They can't expect valid results until the utility of the product is valuable.
> If the courses aren't valuable aside from the benefits of learning (which can be accomplished through other means),
The combination of lecture, graded exercise, guided reading (usually) and time constraints that Coursera and EdX courses have is, IMO/IME, a very good combination for learning that makes them better than many other alternatives for the purposes of learning (Udacity is, comparatively, fairly bad at some parts of this.)
> Meanwhile, it's hard to take the courses seriously when only 5% of the enrollment finishes the course.
I think that completion is a bad metric. One of the benefits of MOOCs is that it lowers the sunk cost of entry which encourages broader enrollment, particularly enrollment by people who are experimenting with the content or less certain that outside commitments will be able to be contained in a way that allows completion.
The idea that % complete is a measure of how many people are deriving an educational benefit is wrong.
They can't expect valid results until the utility of the product is valuable.