The guys is arguing that because degrees are held more widely now, they are less differentiating. That's not a reason, necessarily, to stop valuing a degree. Perhaps it indicates that employers and resumes need to look past "went to my classes, got As, was in fraternity F and honorary H" and look for things like "dual major in CS and Film, part of student team who designed university online film archive."
In other words, look for people who demonstrated non-rote talent while in college and were ambitious enough to capitalize on their education. Otherwise, I could say that almost everyone goes to high school so why go to high school and fund it with taxes or private fees? That's a bit unfair, but also a bit fair as an extension of the argument.
I don't have anything to say about the rising cost of college. I need to look into this. I know it increased every year I was in college due to projects like a new gymnasium with a big rock wall (to impress the alumni foundation) and other things like that. Much of what universities do could probably be student designed and run on the cheap, while providing practical education of the above-mentioned kind.
The author is a neocon ex-speechwriter for Bush II. Note the bizarre focus on the nominal wage of college graduates instead of the relative bonus college graduates earn over high school graduates. Wages may be falling for college graduates, but they truly suck for high school graduates.
Given his strange inability to put together a logical argument and his entrenchment in the Republican War on Science, I'm not surprised he considers his college degree worthless. The professors are all liberal anyway.
He's not just arguing about the value of the degree itself -- he's arguing that the value of the degree, coupled with the rising costs (which are increasing at roughly double the rate of inflation), make the long-term value proposition of a college degree far less certain.
Furthermore, I think his argument is less focused on the value of the degree itself, and more on the value of subsidies for college tuition. Just as cheap lending made homes more expensive, cheap lending can/will/does make tuition more expensive. Is subsidizing a college education for everyone such a good idea, if it leads to enormous costs?
I don't know the answer, but I think that the argument is more complex than "degrees aren't worth as much when everyone has them."
In other words, look for people who demonstrated non-rote talent while in college and were ambitious enough to capitalize on their education. Otherwise, I could say that almost everyone goes to high school so why go to high school and fund it with taxes or private fees? That's a bit unfair, but also a bit fair as an extension of the argument.
I don't have anything to say about the rising cost of college. I need to look into this. I know it increased every year I was in college due to projects like a new gymnasium with a big rock wall (to impress the alumni foundation) and other things like that. Much of what universities do could probably be student designed and run on the cheap, while providing practical education of the above-mentioned kind.