I think this is an important angle to the story: if the students are "customers" spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars there's an incentive to try t

I think this is an important angle to the story: if the students are "customers" spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars there's an incentive to try to make them happy. I also think wish someone would report on whether the claims of the students are true. This NY Post article brushes the claims aside because they're bad journalists. The only slightly better Guardian article includes this gem: > An NYU spokesperson defended the firing, emphasizing high student withdrawals and bad course evaluations. The statement said the decision was also based on complaints about dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension and lack of transparency about grading. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/06/nyu-professor-fired-maitland-jones-jr-student-petition https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/06/nyu-professo... I don't necessarily believe NYU, but I think a good journalist could investigate if this guy was actually just a bad teacher rather than parroting the complaints of second or third hand accounts. Are people dropping the class and failing at a higher than expected rate? I also think there's a "labor rights" issue here. The students did not call for the professor to be fired, but NYU did because it was the easy way out. There was no union or tenure to protect him, he was a "contract" teacher. On its face, any claim that "kids today are lazy" deserves serious scrutiny because old people have made that claim since antiquity. There are lots of serious and interesting issues at play here beyond that lazy trope.