First off, thank you for taking the time to write a critique on what could easily have been a spam post from a throwaway account.

I'll do my best to address each of your points.

---
"What is the basis for the belief that this system is different?"

This system is different from traditional education in that there are no standardized tests, no tenured teachers, and the student determines the pace of their education. This system also differs from traditional education in the amount of information made available to the student concerning career options and to the student's potential employers concerning the student's character qualities and experience upon the student's graduation.

As you mentioned, this system has slightly less differences when compared to vocational education.

---
'Given that this proposal is very similar to systems we've had, why should we expect better success?'

I actually had someone refer to this model as 'vocational education for white collar jobs' and that's a fairly close summarization. I have no intention of competing with tech schools. Instead, I'm going to apply the vocational education model to traditional education, whose attempt to provide students/society with a "well rounded" and "cultured" students has led to a second system - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/660900/the-three-systems-...
- while standardized testing has bled students' creativity and intrinsic motivation.

---
'Note that McDonald's already has its own Hamburger University, which is a corporate university.'

Noted. I also noted the severely limited scope of Hamburger University's curriculum to "development paths for crew, restaurant managers, mid-managers and Executives". The was no mention of software engineers, marketing staff, logistics coordinators, etc. Seems like McDonalds is still a potential market.

---
'The text says "Unlike traditional [...] societies."'

No, the text says "Unlike traditional [...] societies, streamlining the process of determining learning objectives for each occupational role."

I'm aware that traditional accreditation boards are influenced by both industry and professional societies. Most of the research I've done on accreditation boards was on ABET and here is their list of partners - http://www.abet.org/network-of-experts/expand-your-network/

However, most accreditation boards allow the educational institution to create the educational objectives: http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/cri...

I want to see Industry create the minimum viable educational objectives, in order to increase both transparency and standardization. I say "minimum viable educational objectives" because these requirements would the most commonly requirements shared by the majority of the industry for specific entry level roles.

I do see how appending the actual variance between ABI and traditional accreditation boards to the end of the sentence weakens the statement and I will be editing that.

---
"How much time is needed from the 'institutional advisers and industry experts' to provide the 'deep personalization'?"

This is an issue that is going to require some experimentation. I suspect there will be a high level of variability in the amount of time individual students will require and the fee structure is going to have reflect that.

My current model is that my institution will cover advising fees to a certain cap, after which the student will be charged at an hourly rate.

---
"Do these industry experts get any training in how to evaluate students?"

Yes, all advisors receive guidance on advising best practices.

---
"What mechanisms are in place should the industry experts, say, discriminate against students who are veterans - is the school responsible, or the company?

What if the expert simply doesn't like a given student; can the student request an alternate?"

My current model is that industry experts would be treated as independent contractors. Students would choose the industry experts that they wished to be advised by and be able to rate those experts at certain milestones. As opposed to advising experts, interviewing experts would be randomly selected from within the same field of study and can not be rated by interviewed students. There would be an appeal process for interviews however, that would trigger a second interview, but incur additional charges if the second interview is failed.

If an expert can be statistically proven to be discriminating against a subset of students, that expert will likely be dropped from the program.

---
"What methods are in place should the local company with the industry experts decide to relocate or otherwise stop assisting with the program?"

If all goes well, this education model will be based on an online platform so the physical distance between expert and student, within a certain number of time zones anyway, won't be a severe factor. Face-to-Face advisement can certainly be more efficient in some cases, but whether those are offered and at what price will depend on what we learn as we go along.