MITx 6.86x: Machine Learning with Python — From Linear Models to Deep Learning vs Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree
Same Bayesian formula, same rubric — so the difference in scores reflects the difference in the courses, not the difference in how we evaluated them.
MITx / edX · AI & ML Courses
MITx 6.86x: Machine Learning with Python — From Linear Models to Deep Learning
Udacity · AI & ML Courses
Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree
Per-criterion
Graduate-level MIT curriculum: linear classifiers, SVMs, neural nets, clustering, recommender systems, and reinforcement learning, taught from first principles. Reviewers praise the depth and the under-the-hood focus, though several find the lectures terse with too few worked examples.
Taught by MIT faculty Regina Barzilay, Tommi Jaakkola, and Karene Chu. Strong expertise, but learner feedback on the lectures is polarized — praised for intuition by some, called short and example-light by others. Most learning happens through the projects, not the videos.
A verified certificate (~$300) buys MIT-grade material that builds algorithms from scratch and counts toward the Statistics and Data Science MicroMasters. The course can also be audited for free, so the paid tier is mainly for the credential and graded autograder access.
As a self-paced MOOC there is no 1:1 instructor support; help comes from course forums and learner-run Discord groups. Multiple reviewers explicitly recommend joining a class Discord to stay motivated and unblock on projects, which signals the official support channel alone is thin.
You implement linear models, kernels, neural nets, and RL by hand, which builds durable intuition for how ML actually works. The trade-off, noted by reviewers, is that it deliberately avoids high-level libraries like scikit-learn, so it is foundational rather than a job-ready tooling course.
Reviewers consistently praise the project curation and AWS SageMaker coverage, but the deep learning section is widely flagged as too short and the lectures lean engineering-first rather than theory-first.
Instructor quality on individual lessons is strong (clear videos, mix of Jupyter notebooks and text), but the program has many authors and no single pedagogical voice across the four-course track.
The biggest drag on the score. Monthly subscription at $249-399 makes the total cost roughly $800-1500+, and reviewers consistently compare it unfavourably to cheaper Coursera, Georgia Tech OMSCS or fast.ai alternatives.
Mentor-graded project reviews are the most praised feature across the entire sample. Multiple reviewers report personalised written feedback within 30-45 minutes and treat this as the main differentiator vs MOOCs.
Projects are real and end-to-end (SageMaker deployment, sentiment analysis, capstone) which transfers better than passive video courses, but reviewers flag heavy use of boilerplate code as a brake on independent skill-building.
Scoring methodology applies identically to every course on the site — see the formula.