The situation will change when the basic proficiency level of the average student makes them untenable to hire. Unfortunately for those of us who would like to see the system improve, the required level seems to be dropping as technology allows corporations to automate a lot of tasks, and make other tasks nearly fool proof (think customer service flow charts).

For those roles that require actual acumen and responsibility, training for those will continue as it has since time immemorial: passed directly from family member or family friend to eager young adults, which is a primary force creating and maintaining class boundaries.

I'm one of those in college solely to get "certified impressive".

I think in software dev the trend is going the right way, you see a lot of degree helpful but not required. There is a lot of benefit in the degree but there are many paths to a goal and they should be objectively compared in hiring.

The reality is that most Research Professors (not all professors are on the tenure track, after all) are more motivated by research than by education, because they have to be. Nearly everything is stapled to #/quality of publications. If you don't like that, you'll have to revamp the whole system.

Besides, as much as we glorify it, teaching students sucks. Students do the bare minimum it takes to get the grades they want, and exhibit next to no real interest in the topics at hand. Add on to that that the professor has likely been researching an offshoot of this topic for years or even decades and you don't exactly have any motivation for the professor to put himself out there for the student.

If you want a professor to really care about you and make an active investment in you, you have to engage with him or her somewhere outside of class. The best way to do this is through research. If you want to put in your minimum to get your diploma, you're going to get that professor's minimum as well.

Teaching students sucks when students aren't engaged. It sucks to teach students who don't actually want to learn something; they just want to fulfill a requirement, or put the class on their CV. You're exactly right to say that "If you want to put in your minimum to get your diploma, you're going to get that professor's minimum as well."

That is, when teaching sucks, it sucks because students are participating in the exact same behavior that colleges are: bolstering their perceived reputations. Students do this because they have been taught (by colleges and the schools that prepare them for college) that reputation is what counts. So, if you fix the reputation-seeking system, student and professorial engagement in learning should increase, too.

But the really good and memorable ones took the job seriously and seemed to have a lot of fun.

Since I was in an engineering curriculum, I didn't notice many unmotivated students. Anyone like that washed out pretty early.

I don't think teaching inherently sucks. I think universities have let people into the profession who lack either the skills or the motivation, since teaching is seen as secondary to research.

In my experience professors care deeply about their students. Hell, most academics exist outside of fundable research. Think of the hundreds of humanities professors at every university. While they all have research interests... they hardly have anyone wanting to throw money at it.

The article actually touched on the fundamental issue. My wife did her time at a major research university. She finally decided that she'd rather spend her time as an educator, rather than as research arm for governmental policy (top level accounting professors play a big role in setting the direction of policy decisions).

She is now at a teaching-focused institution, but there is one problem: certain administrators continue to think in terms of the elite university model. They use the research metric, rather than the educational metrics as the ones to base advancement on. My wife is fortunate. Her time at the research focused institution has left her with a lifetimes worth of material for publishing. She can focus on teaching and her students benefit from it. A huge (epic) shortage of accounting professors means she is quite secure in her job... but that's definitely not true for most disciplines. So instead of being allowed to focus on students, these professors are FORCED into focusing on research. This is a scenario played out over and over again.

I'm not really sure what the right answer is, but I do think the traditional elite university model is quite broken at the lower level universities.

You can kind of see that now. It used to be that people with only High School diplomas were very hire-able and people with B.A/S.s were the rarity. Now, in most professional environments a B.A/S. is a minimum requirement and M.A/S.s are preferred. Before too long M.A/S.s will be required for entry level jobs and either a second degree or a PhD will be the preferred.

To fix this situation:

1. Remove all government funding 2. Remove all guarantees on student aid

Then students would be forced to do some economic analysis on what they think is worth it. They would care significantly more about he value proposition. By removing guarantees on student aid institutions would have a vested interest in creating the highest quality graduates or else it would become difficult for future students to receive loans.

The solution is for society to quit placing such a high value on am arbitrary piece of paper.

It's primarily an IQ test. An inefficient, expensive, and not terribly accurate test, but one that employers can use without getting sued out of existence.

Why? If you want to give education away, start with free kindergartens. The guys who are ready to go to university have already have already made it into the middle class.

The value of that paper would go down if the government took away tax incentives, interest rate subsidies, and the ability to eliminate student debt liabilities after 10 years.