> It appears quite broken (massively increased costs and decreasing evidence of efficacy). Of course, it’s not like those skyrocketing costs are going to the p

> It appears quite broken (massively increased costs and decreasing evidence of efficacy). Of course, it’s not like those skyrocketing costs are going to the professors. So it’s kind of strange to point at costs as a reason to strip power from the one group that’s probably not responsible for said costs. Personally I’d argue that if anyone inside colleges bears blame for the poor state of the college system, it’s the administrators. But of course they’re the ones that benefit from this change. (Naturally there are parties outside colleges responsible for the change in costs too, these things are complicated).