> The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise; that is, the antidote to the zero-sum aspects of education are not necessarily less education. Th

> The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise; that is, the antidote to the zero-sum aspects of education are not necessarily less education. That feels like a strawman. After all, he didn't say the antidote necessarily was less education, but also different education. i.e., not everyone should go to college could mean more people ought to go to vocational training. An argument he makes quite clearly: > The college-for-all mentality has fostered neglect of a realistic substitute: vocational education. It takes many guises—classroom training, apprenticeships and other types of on-the-job training, and straight-up work experience—but they have much in common. All vocational education teaches specific job skills, and all vocational education revolves around learning by doing, not learning by listening. Research, though a bit sparse, suggests that vocational education raises pay, reduces unemployment, and increases the rate of high-school completion. > You're essentially saying: "education is only worth investing in for some people." So, absolutely not. None of this was said. As for the argument about economics and the intrinsic value to enrich the human mind... Sure, in principle I and everyone else agrees (see K12 history classes). But you'd also agree, there are limits. For one, we don't expect people to go to super-college from 30 to 60, paying $10k a year either, to enrich the human mind. At some point education becomes a personal concern for everyone to pursue according to his/her wishes, interests, desires, rather than a societal concern. And secondly, it feels like this argument is completely detached from reality. Nobody cares if you spent $5k on a history education and enjoyed it, nobody argues against that. What people argue against is spending $50k on a history education you'll never use in the marketplace that either put you 50k in debt, which will burden you for an entire decade, or require other people (including those who didn't go to college) to pay for it. If you simply enjoy history, there's plenty of ways to study it for free. You and I probably do it all the time. If you want to study history to become an academic, teacher, writer etc, assuming the job exists, that's fine, there's a connection between the skills you learn and the skills your future job requires. And if that requires investments to overcome sociological differences, I'm all for that. (minority who studied sociology here, you get no complaints from me). But we obviously also see people getting taught skills that are completely useless. I've worked in a few faculties in a university. I'm not even necessarily talking about history majors or something. The most egregious example I think are business students, they get taught tons of stuff they never use. And don't tell me they study them for the sake of cultural enrichment, either, that's a joke, they'll tell you themselves. They study these things to get the piece of paper that gives them entrance to a job they didn't need to study for, which they've essentially bought with useless effort and debt. That's wrong, you know it, and the answer isn't 'more college education for everyone'. The author's suggestion that college-for-all neglects a substitute: vocational schooling, I think is really apt. That's different education, not less.