There is so much wrong with this article, I don't know where to begin... At the beginning he writes: "My American Enterprise Institute colleague Charles Murray

There is so much wrong with this article, I don't know where to begin... At the beginning he writes: "My American Enterprise Institute colleague Charles Murray has called for the abolition of college for almost all students. Save it for genuine scholars, he says, and let others qualify for jobs by standardized national tests, as accountants already do." Then, a little later, he writes: "The American Council of Alumni and Trustees concluded, after a survey of 714 colleges and universities, 'by and large, higher education has abandoned a coherent content-rich general education curriculum.'" One of the biggest problems with education in this country, and not just in colleges, is that people only learn what they need to learn for the test (New York State's Regents Exams are a massive testament to this). So, if we need to return to a "content-rich general education curriculum", how does that jive with just studying to pass a standardized national test? I would argue in favor of the more "content-rich general education curriculum" approach, but what he fails to mention is why curricula have changed so dramatically: Big businesses want people who can "hit the ground running." It is why so many CS departments have abandoned teaching fundamentals, over teaching students how to use version control, for instance. Businesses do not want to spend time teaching people things they "should have learned in college," like version control. Ok, learning version control, which was not part of most CS curricula 20 years ago, should now be part of a CS degree today? So this new class should replace what...? And if not replace a CS class, maybe replace...an English class...? The beginning of a slippery slope.