For your information, the writer made
a follow-up post on his blog. The argument there is more standard:
Just some points:
-The options the writer talks about for self-learning in the humanities (Amazon books, online discussion) are there for the STEM stuff; in fact, STEM self-learning is more useful. Engineering schools have a reputation for weeding out students and substandard instruction. Or math: instead of wading through a chunky calculus textbook designed for engineers, buy some used paperback advanced calculus books (with proof) and use Stackexchange.
-Liberal arts majors who advocate for STEM aren't knowledgeable about what the promised "information economy" will look like. In fact, no one really know what it will look like. All we know at this point is certain skills that should be of use: experience around a lab, programming, data management. So it's not so much that we need more STEM majors as people who take classes on Python or MySQL.
-Critical reading remains a huge issue. Articulate writing is an even bigger issue, which plagues even elite universities. The bigger crisis is not the private universities and their elaborate tuition system, but the rise in prices of public schools. People going into public schools cannot write well enough to succeed in their first year, and the price gives them greater incentives to drop out.
-As time goes on, the idea of what a university-level class will look like will change. MOOCs is the first salvo on an attack against costly lectures. It's not then the price of lectures I'm concerned with, but the value of a "college experience". Employers want the laundry list of achievements through college that show a diligent work ethic. The college experience is about freedom of choice. When these interests collide, which side wins?
