There are pieces of it that are broken, but the assumption that some new better system will inevitably and miraculously emerge if only we had the political will to smash what we have to pieces is silly.
I'm for reform, I'm not for blindly destroying something we have and simply crossing my fingers in hope that it becomes better that way. If you're concerned about how education runs, feel free to propose a new system, but don't simply assume that if we smash it with a sledge hammer something better will emerge. Frankly the only thing that's likely to result in is ensuring the US lose its superpower status permanently. (I think people often forget just how much of our military advantage is predicated on a research infrastructure that involves US universities. Universities here do a hell of a lot more than just teach students. Frankly anyone who supports our military needs to consider that our existing system of universities critical to its success. Smashing this system is as reckless as proposing to simply cut funding to the military and then expecting them go to fight China or take over the middle east or whatever.)
Or is the US credentialing system, or perhaps academic research system the best in the world? I don't see a compelling reason why controlling costs on the education side would harm the credentialing and research parts of the system.
The education parts of the university and the research parts of the university are not staffed separately. In a research university the people who do research are some of the same people who design lesson plans. The idea is that this enhances a student's educational experience.
I agree though, that tuition is indeed too high. But I'm willing to stand by the assertion that our education system is the best in the world too, not just our research system. This is even more true when it comes to our graduate programs.
It would actually be pretty easy to cut salaries without impacting research; pay separately for teaching and research. Teaching a class pays $4-6k/class, or whatever market rate for a PTL is. Grant supported research pays a market rate salary for research.
Then we get teaching for cheap, but don't sacrifice the quality of research.
As for enhancing a student's educational experience, meh. Some people are good at research and teaching. Far more people are good only at one. Because universities want grant money, this usually means good researchers but bad teachers provide teaching (and waste time not doing research). Not sure how this "enhances" a student's educational experience.
Until this happens it's generally not feasible to pay teachers next to nothing and research staff a lot on the same campus. Then all the students just complain they're not being taught by real professors and they truly will pay twice or four times as much at a different school to get taught by research-based professors. (Who often, as you point out, can't lecture for crap half the time.) Universities do some amount of work to ensure that research pays above grade and teaching only faculty get paid on a completely separate grade, but the expectations of the students generally keeps this from happening in a better way.
That said, there are some students that really do benefit from learning with and participating with the top researchers in the world. Those students do need to continue to go to research institutions for their education and do benefit substantially from the research activity on a campus.
I won't dispute this either. But to say that students who go looking for quality can find more quality in the United States haphazard nonsystem of higher education than they can in other countries is not the same as saying that United States higher education delivers good value for money. Higher education in the United States also absorbs astounding amounts of money.
Many economists of education (I will mention Mark Blaug, but you could find others) point out that if we must talk about public subsidies for schooling, the place to put them is in the K-12 system with its presumably compulsory attendance, rather than in the higher education sector. Public subsidy of higher education tends to operate as a transfer of funds to the less able rich (who can afford to take time off from the labor force to attend college) at the expense of the more (academically) able poor, who still find it difficult even to be admitted to college, much less to complete it.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840045_...
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affacti...
http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/financial-aid-leveragi...
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012
http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1240
http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap....
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123910.html
Transnational comparisons (yes, including with China) tend to show that the most successful strategy for national strength is to devote the most public funding to broad educational programs for the early years, and to allow much support of higher education by the students in higher education, relying on their savings, their current income, private charity (including discounts from the colleges), and their creditworthiness. Countries with higher education funded largely by private funds actually have greater participation in higher education that reaches a broader segment of the population.
I agree with you on another point, I am not convinced we provide good value to most students for their money. I think fees and tuition is too high.
I do not think the solution to that is simply smashing the universities with a hammer, which is what this guy in the video proposes.