In working for Pearson, you will help universities to decide the curriculum for teacher candidates, for remember, what gets tested gets taught. So efficient. Combined with Pearson's canned teaching modules, professors will have less prep time and more time to drive between universities, which will allow them to increase their adjunct teaching loads. After all, academic sharecroppers these days have holiday bills, too, and $3000 per course won't buy a whole lot these days.
Is this what the NYTimes editorial board had in mind when it talked about creating a teaching force like Finland and Singapore?
Here is the ad as it appears in Chronicle of Higher Education (apparently Pearson has a need for editors of ad copy, too), and below that is an explanation as to why this is a very bad idea by teacher educator Julie Gorlewski at SUNY New Paltz, via the Ravitch blog: