I read the article and rather enjoyed the story, but I agree with Mr. Desmond that it really isn't what I would call an expose on "Old School" vs "New School" as billed. Mr. Higgins seems to me to be an extreme case, as is the instruction provided at the TaylorMade Performance Lab, and most golf instruction is going to fall somewhere in between, even if you go the high tech route.
I love Golf Magazine and Golf Digest, subscribe to both and look forward to my monthly copies. Their web sites are chock full of interesting articles and videos. But it soon struck me that from one issue to the next the "major revelations" from various articles often either contradict last month's or at least don't exactly compliment them! Interesting articles need to show clear differentiations; the author's take on what is right and what is wrong. There are probably a hundred articles each year from various people suggesting the "easy fix" for common swing problems. But the fix isn't always the same. How many articles have most of us seen on how to cure your slice forever?
Last year as I was getting excited about golf I spent a lot of time on both of those web sites trying to soak everything up. I am NOT saying it didn't do me any good, but I quickly came to the above stated conclusion and have really started being selective about which advice articles I give much attention to. (On this and other web sites too!)
For me, golf is a lot about feel; what I am feeling during the swing. So, I guess I'm a fan of old school, don't just tell me I need to close my club face another 3.5 degrees, I want to know what doing that will feel like. I think the real benefit of all the various articles is that once in a while someone will write one that really "clicks" for me and gives me something I feel like I can actually take to the range and work on, with MY swing, on MY range. Sadly, to that extent I didn't find any benefit from this particular article that I hadn't already gleaned from Harvey Penick's Little Red Book.