I think this says more about entrepreneurs in the education space than it does about the program. For whatever reason this space seems to consistently attract shady and/or underqualified people. I think the reason is that education is an area where you can't really contribute anything of value unless you are well versed in the science. Because of this it's really easy to snow virtually everyone, from investors and the media to school administrators and teachers. So you consistently see lots of ideas that have zero chance of producing good results that still get lots of funding and even some initial traction.
The difference is that Khan would be underqualified if he were trying to do something innovative, but he's not. He's just making a bridge technology, a collection of mostly mediocre content that's designed to be moderately useful until something better comes along. There's no way a for-profit could get funded if this were their goal, at least not if they were upfront about it. Plus even if it's not the greatest site ever, at least it serves a purpose and he's not actively trying to scam people.
The lectures are fairly standard, the exercise scheduling system he's attempting to build is not. While I've criticized him for not being ambitious enough (Khan often stresses he doesn't want to replace teachers), he is building far more than just video lectures.
Also, he had several funding offers from VC's, so your assertion about what VC's might fund is incorrect.
John Resig and Craig Silverstein didn't join Khan Academy to generate "mostly mediocre", "moderately useful" content until something better comes along.
I think it's important, especially with startups, to look to the future rather than to sit around judging the present.
In the beginning, Microsoft were making a limited Altair BASIC that only appealed to a handful of hardcore geeks, but later they had a computer in every office and home. You don't get there if you try to solve the world in step 1.
I've admittedly seen a lot of 'why' type companies in the education space, but I think it's more the lack of familiarity than an intent to snow people. At KinderTown we do have actual teachers working for us, and even though I've been reading a ton on education topics myself there's an amazing amount of things to learn. It's a much harder space than it looks like at first.
I think that's a pretty broad and unfair generalization about entrepreneurs in the education space. It's not exactly a common skillset to be well versed in the science of education and technology, so I won't back down from the unqualified statement. That being said, I've yet to meet these "shady" characters you claim are attracted to the space.
The shadiness comes in whenever a product is sold to government or generally when the person authorizing the payment isn't spending their "own" money, and when it is hard to measure the delivered value of the product. This is common for education and other government-contract work, and also happens in the private sector (for example, corporate bulk IT services shopping)
Education is the worlds biggest problems and opportunities right behind healthcare. People risking everything to make the world a better place shouldn't be denigrated like this. Their failure means there is more for someone to learn from.
There's something to that. Not every older Roman emperor was successful. But almost all of the emperors that took the throne before 20 were disastrous.
