[jgorham]

I don't know if this is a fair recapitulation of his "argument" - the three categories you are alluding to above were more criteria he offered for how you might judge the worth of college as an institution. I'm fairly certain the author of this isn't a "desperate man who does not understand humans or what education is."

That being said, people on HN are obsessed with discussing the ROI of undergraduate education when referring to the "bubble," without really discussing the role that a liberal education should play for those who aren't engineers. I think the really interesting point the author made was that professor's incentives have goes awry, as they are better off if they assign easier coursework so that they don't get docked on student reviews at the end of the term.

[bugsy]

Did we read different articles? He doesn't make the argument about the negative side effects of linking pay and advancement to student evaluations in the article that is linked.

Perhaps you are thinking of another article by the same author? I have read that argument before and it's obviously a good one, but it's not brought up in this article here.

[gammarator]

"Professors say that the only aspect of their teaching that matters professionally is student course evaluations, since these can figure in tenure and promotion decisions. It’s in professors’ interest, therefore, for their classes to be entertaining and their assignments not too onerous. They are not deluded: a study carried out back in the nineteen-nineties (by Alexander Astin, as it happens) found that faculty commitment to teaching is negatively correlated with compensation."

[bugsy]

Ah, thanks. I went back and read it two more times and didn't find it, but there it is. (For any one else looking for this excerpt, it's mentioned in passing mid-paragraph half way down page 3.)