I've been following developments at a nearby university with mixed feelings. Their engineering and science departments are growing and doing well while their ag and forestry departments have been under pressure. Liberal arts programs are treated as though they were a vestigial organ and simply allowed to exist as long as they are not a nuisance. In all cases the investment is in infrastructure and facilities. Investment in people to teach at the facility is a mixed bag with the most growth being in contract teaching, basically temporary workers. Because the professors are temporary, I question if they actually do more than just follow the program.
I actually don't think the best way to teach the up and coming knowledge work force would be as you suggest by an ad-hoc college formed by rogue professors who may be really good but would be hampered without the infrastructure provided by a funded university. For example, science and mathematics in today's world need to to be taught in fairly expensive facilities and use expensive equipment. At least at the junior-senior levels and up, they do.
Maybe liberal arts can be taught on-line but I still think the bringing together of people, both students and professors has as much value as the book knowledge. Learning how to share ideas, build relationships, work together, compete with each other are all things that I don't believe can be taught on line. Let's not forget that most business and political leaders come from this line of education, so we owe it to ourselves to give them as good an education as possible.
We, as in the people of my state and people in other states, are not investing enough in education. That's the real problem.
My jab was at the libertarian idea of the market setting prices. In universities, this creates a race to the bottom that cripples future growth for the economy.
