Free M.I.T. Course Teaches You How to Become Bill Nye & Make Great Science Videos for YouTube

in MIT, Online Courses, Science, YouTube | March 23rd, 2016

If I had my way, more academics would care about teaching beyond the walls of the academy. They’d teach to a broader public and consider ways to make their material more engaging, if not inspiring, to new audiences. You can find examples out there of teachers who are doing it right. The heirs of Carl Sagan–Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye–know how to light a spark and make their material come alive on TV and YouTube. How they do this is not exactly a mystery, not after M.I.T. posted online a course called “Becoming the Next Bill Nye: Writing and Hosting the Educational Show.

Taught at M.I.T. over a month-long period, Becoming the Next Bill Nye was designed to teach students video production techniques that would help them “to engagingly convey [their] passions for science, technology, engineering, and/or math.” By the end of the course, they’d know how to script and host a 5-minute YouTube show.

You can now find the syllabus and all materials for that course online at MIT’s OpenCourseWare site. This includes all video lectures and class assignments. Or, if you prefer, you can get the video lectures straight from this YouTube playlist.

Becoming the Next Bill Nye will be added to our meta collection, 1200 Free Online Courses from Top Universities.

Related Content:

Carl Sagan Presents Six Lectures on Earth, Mars & Our Solar System … For Kids (1977)

Watch the Highly-Anticipated Evolution/Creationism Debate: Bill Nye the Science Guy v. Creationist Ken Ham

Neil deGrasse Tyson Lists 8 (Free) Books Every Intelligent Person Should Read

by | Make a Comment (2)




Comments (2)

  1. NikFromNYC says . . .
    March 23, 2016 / 11:00 am

    This generation is do dumbed down they can’t even think for themselves confidently enough to simply acknowledge the Enron level outright scam that is climate “science.” They just block you on Twitter if you call them to task about it, scoffing about Fox News and spouting conspiracy theory about oil money. Well, OpenCulture, if the scientific method is abandoned in your society, and you too fail to call it out, then you are anti-culture are you not?

    The latest hockey stick media sensation of 2013 for instance, here, carry on and just ignore it, ignore that this often referred to paper has no blade whatsoever in the actual input data:

    http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg

    Bill Nye is promoting authority over empiricism, to the ruin of many children’s ability to think clearly. That’s disgusting, but then again, OpenCulture also fails to ridicule instead of celebrate a literal toilet being held up as the pinnacle of Western art. First the academics destroyed aesthetics, now they come for science. Watching this scam topple and take you boilerplate greenie preening fossil Hippies down with it, watching indoctrinated kids grow up to hate you, your own children and students, will be glorious.

    Here’s more gold standard peer reviewed facts for you Bill Nye worshippers to ignore, how both real thermometer records back 350 years and actual tide gauge records back 150 years prove recent trends are completely natural:

    http://s6.postimg.org/cdfc600dt/image.jpg

    http://s23.postimg.org/47l8f5jvf/Tide_Gauges_Eye_Candy.gif

    http://s6.postimg.org/uv8srv94h/id_AOo_E.gif

    Those are all referenced. Bill Nye is teaching children that it’s “cherry picking” to focus on such core data that bluntly falsifies the highly water vapor amplified greenhouse effect that dominates the climate models that firm the entire basis of climate hysteria. No, wrong, that’s not cherry picking at all, and to say so is so utterly Orwellian that it echoes outright Stalinism if not cult brainwashing. After all, it does have the makings of a doomsday cult, with original carbon footprint sin and cries of denial when confronted with facts.

    -=NikFromNYC=-, PhD in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  2. Chris says . . .
    March 31, 2016 / 7:46 am

    Hey Nik,

    I’m an analytical chemist at Georgia Tech who has also spent a good bit of time studying ecology.

    Your last data set doesn’t go past 2000. The one that goes the furthest is still missing the last four years. Are you sure you’re using the best data? The Simpsons graphics don’t add to the credibility of your graphics.
    Your third data set features charts that all start well after the industrial revolution, and also shows upward trends.

    What do you think about ocean acidification? What do you think about the more extreme weather patterns we’ve been observing? What do you think of the present rate of deforestation?

    It’s always good to be critical, but you seem to be the one shouting about dogma. It’d be great if we found that our environment was resilient to our species’ newest habits, but the consensus for the last 50 years has been otherwise. The data’s only been mounting in that time.

    The earth is essentially a closed system. For the last 275 years we’ve been taking things out of the ground and putting them into the air. How could that not affect the physical properties of our atmosphere and habitat? And if it did affect it, what effects would you expect to see?

    Also- consider the irony of claiming an entire scientific enterprise isn’t credible while calling those critical of the influence of profit-driven petroleum companies “conspiracy theorists.”

Add A Comment