Unfortunately, my concern is that if my son doesn't follow the status quo then that will leave him at a disadvantage in the job market. As an employer myself though, I interview a huge number of people who have degrees and who aren't really that capable, so it is very difficult to determine quality.
I think most university tutors would find this an insulting caricature of what they and their students do. Is this what you actually think happens at university?
In all in-person large schools, lecture to passive students runs 90% of classes. The essential problem is, any class with more than about 30 students is too big to enable interaction from students. That means only maybe 10% of senior / grad classes even might break the mold of "shut up and sit there while I talk".
In-person small colleges have it better. Few courses there exceed 50 students. But more and more courses there are taught by journeyman profs, which causes instructional quality to vary from year to year.
However MOOCs aren't necessarily any better. Due to their remote delivery and being recorded, all human contact is lost aside from a few text messages to TAs (if you pay). In many, even grading is often automated.
In short, I agree with the sentiment that post-secondary education MUST change. But as they stand now, MOOCs are not the answer. (Other than significantly reducing tuition, which is no small achievement of course.)
Because the higher the score they get in a high stakes test that everyone cares about and everyone knows everyone cares about the higher the floor is on their ranking by some weighted (intelligence x conscientiousness) score. And that score can be conveyed unambiguously in seconds. The same cannot be said for a holistic evaluation of someone’s skills, talents and capabilities.
A test score gives you most of the value of a holistic evaluation in far less time.