I can't believe how much irrational hatred has been directed at StraighterLine, a company working so hard to make education more affordable.

Basically what this gentleman and other StraighterLine-bashers are saying is that no one should even try to offer the same educational content at a more affordable price because it would potentially make richer peoples' degree less valuable.

This kind of protectionism is one of many factors stifling innovation in Higher Ed today.

A great professor will still raise above the competition and make an impact on their students but the poorer professors are a joke.

There's also a professor who I doubt knows as much about her subjects as some of her students, or at least isn't teaching like she knows what she's talking about. I think it's very possible nowadays for students to know more about part of a subject than the person that's being paid to teach them.

IF you choose to pursue a university career, then YES, the professor makes a HUGE difference. One of my best professors this semester had to step out for a week to tend to personal issues, and the week he was gone feels like a void in my mind. The content we discussed in lecture went in one ear and out the other. He is what makes that class fun and engaging for me. The same applies to any great professor. Remove them from their classrooms and you'll probably see the students exiting the class at the end of the semester not knowing the material as well as that professor could have helped them to.

On the other hand, self-paced learners who choose to teach themselves and to learn form experience are learning in a different way, and you could argue still that this method benefits greatly from a mentor; someone who can guide them through their learning. In essence, what a professor does. Albeit in a different fashion.

Two problems here...

1. The whole point of accreditation is to make sure every school teaches the basics that students need to earn a degree.

2. If an institution does a poor job of training students their degree will become devalued. This happened at ITT Tech at one point and it led to them reforming their curriculum and becoming accredited (and honestly there degree still isn't exactly well respected). So we really don't need a council of professors to deliver edicts from on high.

In the end I think this line of thinking is just Higher Education realizing they can't fend the fair market off anymore and doing everything in their power to avoid having to compete.

What we should be doing is measuring the output of colleges. This article argues for measuring the inputs, and says anyone with different inputs is inadequate.

It doesn't matter who is responsible for what, as long as the outputs are adequate.

>Over time, the aggregated actions and values of an institution’s faculty establish and define the institution’s values. Rather than being mere "information delivery systems," as some contemporary observers of higher education seem to think, faculty provide the soul, spirit, character and ethical texture of an institution.

In terms of learning, universities have never been about training people for careers, at least historically. We have trade schools for that purpose, where the teachers do not have the same credentials as professors at big universities, but they also do not necessarily need them, as has been pointed out by many.

The point of learning at a big university, is that people on the cutting edge of research in a given field have a moral obligation to pass on their knowledge, and teach new experts in that field. This is for the betterment of our culture as a whole. Where else can you get taught by a researcher on the cutting edge? How many research companies allow such access to their core research personal? Let alone have these personal spend almost half their time educating?

This has been the historical purpose of university teaching. It has never been about teaching students jobs skills, but rather about teaching both critical thinking skills, as well as insight from experts the public may not otherwise have access to.

In recent times, universities have been almost forced to accept that they do train people for jobs, in addition to the theory. This is because of the rush for university education for its value in getting any job, however misplaced. Everyone wants the best for their kids, thus the pressure to go for the top, even though 99% of university students simply want a decent paying job, and are not there to learn anything other than a way to get that.

To summarize, yes, university professors matter. They are not simply teachers, but researchers at the forefront of their respective fields. Access to teachers of this sort is extremely important and cannot be replaced by trade schools.

The question being posed by the original article is more a question of how do we teach trade skills, and what is the level of expertise required for that purpose. Should universities operate trade schools on the side? It is perhaps a necessity, if only because of the social stigma associated with actual trade schools. Many universities already employ non-research faculty, i.e. trade school professors, to teach lower level courses, leaving the specialized courses to those who work in those areas. On the other hand, actual trade schools are seemingly on the rise again. That is not a bad thing.

The first key change is that contemporary students, droves of them, attend university just to get a job. Job skills, as represented by so many facts, can be learned from books, worksheets, online tutorials, and prefab curricula. A good teacher might make it easier to learn the rudiments of compiler design or marketing principles, but is hardly essential.

Not so long ago, students, fewer of them, attended university to study rhetoric and philosophy and the other subjects of the trivium and quadrivium, in order, as they hoped, to become more civilized and humane, or at least to acquire the intellectual trappings of the elite classes. (At some point, of course, such students might take up professional studies in medicine, law, or theology.) Literature and philosophy are not just a set of facts, the way, say, the keywords or design patterns of C++ are. Appreciating literature or living a philosophy, at least doing it well, requires a community of practitioners. There are lone mathematical geniuses (Ramanujan), but rarely a lone genius of literary criticism (Harold Bloom probably spends many hours alone with his books, but he has never existed apart from a sophisticated milieu so far as I know -- not that he's a genius). The acquisition of independent thought, good taste, and even morality must be learned from those who are more adept at them. Such intangible goods represent humans' unsteady and imperfect climb to civilization, and have been handed over from person to person for ages. Books may have been part of the process, but it is humans who humanize humans.

But, I can hear you saying, even the most careerist education tries to nurture independent thought and requires apprenticeship to masters. Nobody can really become an expert at object oriented design without learning from an acknowledged expert -- such design takes experience and taste and sensitivity to nuance, not simple formulas and rote memorization. But really, I would respond, no employer gives a fuck, because a moderate degree of cleverness, ample supply of facts, and ability to research more facts, is more than enough for a new hire. Intellectual sophistication, morality, the dawning of wisdom -- these things don't make money. Philosophy majors suck at following directions.

So the first key change, as I have said, is the careerist rather than humanist emphasis in education.

The second key change is that universities produce way more Ph.D.s than they can employ. Ph.D.s in some disciplines (statistics, molecular biology) can get professional jobs in their field outside of the academy, but Ph.D.s in many other disciplines cannot (Ph.D.s in classics can teach high school or serve french fries -- noble occupations both, but they don't require graduate school). By glutting the labor market with their own graduates, universities can bid down the wages, which they have done and will continue to do.

If students primarily want to learn just the facts (job skillz), and most of their teachers are wage slaves -- overworked and not fully credentialed (no tenure) -- why wouldn't a university contract out curriculum design to for-profit enterprises? If the modern university, heir to hallowed traditions and one-time crucible of civilization, is going to enter its death throes anyway, some savvy entrepreneurs should make a few bucks off it. Otherwise it would be a complete waste.