Maybe I'm missing the joke? The premise is flawed: a PhD in one field couldn't possibly be competent to teach an entire college curriculum, even at the 101 level. Would you really want to take, say, English Literature from even the best microeconomics professor you ever had? Different disciplines, training, etc.
I think there may be humanists who could teach both introductory history and literature classes, and that there are scientists who could teach introductory chemistry, physics, calculus, and scientific programming. I don't know if the particular model in the article can work, but I do know that the model of paying, per year, $40K tuition (at the famous private schools) plus room and board to be taught by professors chosen on the basis of research rather than teaching prowess, in large lecture classes, is a system designed for the professors, not the students. The teaching done by graduate students and non-tenure-track faculty is underpaid relative to the teaching done by the tenure-track faculty. Universities exploit this cheap labor but pass on little of the savings to students. There should be a way around the university toll collectors.
