"1. Down time is useful for, oh, things like co-ops.... It's also part of the research university way of doing things, which 7 wants to abolish."

Most students have no interest in doing research. Most students have no interest in grad school, aside from paying the idea lip service. Higher education needs to reflect this reality. (And of course accomodate those that who are legitimately interested in these things. It's not really a one or the other thing.)

I'm also not proposing "no vacation". You could easily have 4 week breaks between each of the trimesters, for example. I think having no breaks at all would be a disaster.

"2. Some places like MIT let you test out of many/most classes; if appropriate, you can take the final and that counts, whatever the result."

Most students don't go to MIT, and most schools don't allow students to test out of anything except intro classes, and even that's only through the AP program, which is not available in all high schools. Choosing a university that educates maybe 1/10 of 1% of college students and holding it up as though this is readily available to everyone else isn't terribly useful. And it doesn't indicate that the majority of the system is broken.

"3. "Mandatory, off-topic courses" are all part of the ideal of a liberal vs. vocational education. While I feel that's been mostly perverted into modern liberal/radical indoctrination and note that outside of MIT and Caltech the reverse doesn't hold (as of the late '80s the math "requirement" at Harvard was proving you could do algebra), I strongly believe there's value to it and would prefer reform to abolishing the concept if that looks at all practical."

You lost me at "liberal/radical indoctrination".

Anyway, the point was that taking classes doesn't make you well-rounded, because those that have a hunger for knowledge will pick it up anyway, and those that don't, won't. In short, it's a waste of time for both parties.

"5. Offline is an increasingly interesting option, but I think we're a long way from it being a substitute for good versions of the real thing (a involved student body, people with a clue doing the teaching, etc.; plus there's the issue that US broadband is a less than ideal platform to attempt this from)."

US broadband (or lack thereof) is largely a red herring. It doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be good enough. And it is, for most of the population. There are rural areas that are underserved, sure, but most people have access to broadband if they want it.

"6. Co-op is again vocational in focus, and one wonders if the author is aware that taking all this too far will be eating our seed corn by not producing the next generation of academics."

Doing co-op does not preclude becoming an academic. In any event, there are far more grad students who hope to be professors than there are slots for them on the other end.

"7. In my and my friends experience, a real world class researcher who's also serious about undergraduate education (if not always entirely competent in doing it) is vastly superior to mid-tier school professor who's research is nothing to write home about and who envies his betters. At the "bottom", the community colleges and their one step about 4 year equivalents where the professors are their to teach with no pretenses about doing serious research can provide some truly excellent education in well established areas."

Yes, this is the point.

"In the case of those needing post-graduate education (e.g. for those fields where a Ph.D. is the minimal level of education)"

Are the tiny minority of students.

"Bottom line: fix what's broken rather breaking everything and starting from scratch. There's going to serious leverage here as the US higher education bubble starts popping and I suggest ruthless use of that."

That's not a particularly fun thought exercise. ;)