Oh, this is just....
sad and misguided in the extreme. Maybe if one conflates "education" with "training" this is true....
gugubean
tel aviv
NYT Pick
It seems to me that the argument presented should be turned on its head, and considered within the context of grade inflation. The fact that so many students are able to pass frontal-lecture-traditional-format-courses but cannot pass online courses raises grave questions regarding the quality of the those traditional courses. As a university instructor with over ten years of experience teaching both formats, I can say with confidence that the level of learning in online courses that include substantial testing and retesting as well as writing and reading is far greater and deeper than the traditional frontal lecture with midterm and final exams. All the more so for multiple-choice tests. Of course online learning is not suitable for all types of learning--nor even for all types of students--but when it is appropriate to the goals of the course, I would argue that in terms of acquisition and integration of information the online format is both more efficient and results in far greater information retention, if not student retention. And isn't that what learning is really supposed to be about? Isn't that what we really expect when we hear that someone has a high GPA? And yet in traditional courses it is not only possible, but expected that even a student with a very high GPA retains precious little of the vast amounts of information memorized and regurgitated on countless multiple choice exams. What's "higher" about a higher education like that?
My question is--
what's HIGHER (order thinking, I mean) about using scarf-and-barf methods for assessing learning, hmm? 
