I strongly agree with your main point and a number of premises, but quite a bit of this seems to built on false delineations and it looks like trying to create differences where there is not. I see no reason that the structure as you define it or the set agenda as you define it be necessary components in a course, for example. The method of reinforcing what you are learning is by far the most important bit, and the instructor may or may not be at the same level depending on the person. I can envision the existence of a legitimate course without an instructor, however, though I'm not really sure how it would really work.

But, as I said, I do agree that the instructor is a necessary component in the current state of things, which is one of the reasons the false points made me so sad.

I mentioned in the post that video by itself has value. A big part of my point is that it's borderline deceptive to refer to videos as "a course" when we know that "a course" is more than that (just as a live course is more than just listening to somebody lecture).

Oh, like I said, in the current state of things I can't think of anything instructor-less I'd refer to as "a course". My point is that I believe that to be the state now, not an inherent, always-will-be state as your post seems to imply.

It is indeed very interesting the article you wrote differentiating real courses from whatever else. It is sad that anything from a blog post to a youtube video is considered an actual course. I too learned a few things by watching videos or reading a tutorial, but it is far from a real class...and it is insulting to associate those attempts with the word "university". A class is a 2 way street -unlike videos and documents that are unilateral-, where students and teachers can interact..otherwise a lot can be left pending on the student's side..and without a teacher no one can certify that the students were indeed able to grasp the new concepts taught and that they are ready to put them into practice.