The problem, pure and simple, is accreditation. For a "degree" to be worth anything, it has to be accepted in the work community; and that means accreditation; and that means that the ESTABLISHED system has to approve the new competitor.
I worked for ten years with YU trying to get a BA program accredited. I quit, and it was another five before they finally got a degree in government approved. I can't tell you how much BS was involved in class revisions, "behavioral objectives," writing this plan and that plan . . . ALL WITHOUT A DIME OF INCOME. At some point, profs like me give up. It's not worth the possible future payout.
So, no you wouldn't just "rent lab space" and make multimillionaires out of professors. The accreditation community will not permit it. And if you just put it out there, you won't have any takers because the knowledge without the sheepskin is useless to most would-be employees.
Precisely what I said on post 23.
And if you just put it out there, you won't have any takers because the knowledge without the sheepskin is useless to most would-be employees.
If the professors were indeed the top of their field, and the grading standards exacting, do you really mean to tell me that employers wouldn't hire? I agree with you about the structural restraint of trade, but it would seem the customer base could do something about it.
Agreed. Been there done that. There is lots of BS associated with the educationist establishment-—schools of teacher ed which need to become relevant in order to survive and massive bureaucracies at the state and federal levels which would make Stalin's SU proud.
OTOH - the proliferation of majors/programs/courses is astounding. These often needed new programs etc are added to instead of replacing what irrelevant stuff already exists.