It is well known that students entering higher education increasingly lack the academic skills needed to succeed in their college endeavors. It goes without saying that this is largely due to the widespread substandard education provided by legions of mediocre teachers, teachers who deliver substandard education because of their inherently inferior academic abilities. At least, these facts are what Notre Dame philosophy professor Gary Gutting would have readers of The Chronicle of Higher Education believe in his article “Why College Is Not a Commodity.” Although he makes many points that, if true, would be harmful to the elementary and secondary teaching professions, Gutting stops short of proving his arguments logically or empirically. He argues that today's budding K-12 teachers often come from the bottom of the academic ladder, which leads directly to poor teaching, but provides no research to support this connection. Furthermore, Gutting attempts to provide a solution to this so-called travesty by recommending that teaching be “professionalized,” ignoring the professional practices and standards already in place. Gutting's criticisms, while thought-provoking, are ultimately logically and statistically unsatisfactory both in their explanations of the state of teacher qualifications and in their calls to action. Gutting claims that teaching candidates have inherently poor academic ability, but fails to demonstrate that this negatively affects the quality of teaching. He states that “for every other knowledge-based profession – law, medicine, university teaching – we recruit between the top 10-20% of our university students. This is not the case for primary and secondary school teachers” (Gutting). While this may seem true in the first half of the article, by attributing this criticism to poor teaching performance, Gutting neglects to pay attention to data that calls into question the significance and magnitude of the correlation. He then attempts to use this association to justify reforming the education system, but refrains from actually describing the practical elements of this renewal. While some of the points he raises pose valid concerns, the way he presents his views is neither empirically valid nor logically consistent. If he, or anyone else, feels the need to make general statements criticizing a particular occupation, such criticisms must be airtight and constructive before presentation, otherwise the message may get lost and people may take offense at what they believe to be false accusations . Professor Gutting, in attempting to shed light and provide advice on what he considers to be an urgent matter, has not reached that standard.