I will partially disagree because engineering a recording requires two tasks.
1. Deciding that something needs to be changed (using the vast experience you mentioned)
and (drumroll <G>)
2. Being able to change it.
What i think Deryk is suggesting as far as a school, is to teach the business side as well as the "being able" or technically, how to pan, how to add aux, how to add too much compression, and the like. Of course there will be some basic rules of thumb that we all use as a foundation for our own mixing/recording styles (like, point the microphone at the source (grin) rather than out the window). All kidding aside, I don't think anyone could really teach "taste", which is the aspect of recording you are referring too.
Am I right Deryk?
The decision of what to change and why of course is experience, but the mechanical ability to understand signal routing, console control, project management, business management, and most important, how to survive a day in the studio without slapping the guitarist, are very key (g).
I bet you can't tell there is a particular guitarist in my life that I find annoying!
Dimmi said:
Well...here is my exclusively personal opinion on the matter.
Not that I am anybody that has a right to proclaim so, but as far as I understand, there are two aspects to running a studio...the *engineering* aspect and the *business* aspect.
While the second may be taught systematically, the first (the engineering aspect) is very little but vast experience and unconditional desire for perfection.
In other words, one must walk a very long personal way to become an accomplished recording engineer. If one has not walked it yet, then there is no way in hell they will be able record anything that will be worth more than $25 an hour.