Ironically these claims and questions - and similar ones common in STEMish communities like HN - make for critical thought that wouldn't pass in a good professo

Ironically these claims and questions - and similar ones common in STEMish communities like HN - make for critical thought that wouldn't pass in a good professor's class. They negatively impact the discussion. We can think, rather than invest in non-issues and rhetoric, and with hard thought we add value and improve our situation and world. We can do it. > Their main product is a piece of paper - not fundamental education. Critical thought is the fundamental of education. As examples, some serious questions are: What education works best in what conditions? Our dimensions are: Locally / remotely; Interactive / one-way / other (e.g., peer discussion); Topic characteristics; Student characteristics; Teacher characteristics; duration of class; duration of term. Probably there are more, and it's a complex matrix to tease apart. Then, seeing what works, we can see apply technology. We can also look at outcomes for individuals and for our society: How many benefit from colleges as is? What if we changed teaching? What value does college provide, economically, socially, etc.?