Perhaps I was unclear. The argument is that being educated by a groundbreaking researcher is better than being educated by someone who merely knows things, and so it’s worth a tuition premium. Like I said, I think that position is full of holes, but it’s not incoherent.
That is only true for a relatively small minority of students. Most students would do better with a teacher who focuses on teaching because those students are never going to come anywhere near the frontier of knowledge.
