Interesting article (also something of a condensed version of his book, The Case against Education), and a couple of counterpoints. Caplan is making several se

Interesting article (also something of a condensed version of his book, The Case against Education), and a couple of counterpoints. Caplan is making several seemingly-logical assumptions that most readers will miss. I will say that at least some of these assumptions are false, negating the conclusion. Caplan assumes that people are largely immutable ("What I’m cynical about is people."). His touts several studies about both the retention and application of knowledge that support his point excellently. That being said, these studies are, at best, empirical estimations of a philosophical issue. The issue of "real world" ability suffers from being largely impossible to test, has no real definition, and is fraught with assumptions, none of which make for rigorous science. Caplan, as I imagine, is taking college at its full cost when arguing that less people ought to go. I would like to point out it is fully possible to provide a college level education for significantly less than is done so now. I believe point this out makes his pragmatic argument much less strong. I take issue to this claim in particular "My exams are designed to measure comprehension, not memorization. Yet in a good class, four test-takers out of 40 demonstrate true economic understanding." If just 10% of students understand, I would argue the teacher is either grossly ineffective or the student is grossly underprepared. Teasing out the fault is difficult, but don't forget, this anecdote is wholly from the teacher. Also, what constitutes "true economic understanding"? I don't disagree with Caplan's conclusion personally, but I do disagree with how he arrives there. Calling students philistines is both an unfair generalization and a sidelining insult. His assumptions allow him to arrive at an agreeable point, but that path taken is full of disagreeable compromises.