> The author seems to be saying outright that universities are inefficient primarily because the education obtained there has little value. The author mentions

> The author seems to be saying outright that universities are inefficient primarily because the education obtained there has little value. The author mentions that the value of college measured against alumni's wages does not follow a knowledge path (as if the skills increase your income) but a signaling path (as if other people can imagine what you are worth). Thats the spiel about the last semester being the most valuable one, regardless of its content. There is no doubt that signaling is huge: as the recent scandal of admissions into top universities revealed, even though some parents bribed officials to enter college, the kids had no issues passing the classes. It would be cheaper if only going through the admissions process gave you accreditation, since that is the actual valuable part students compete for, and then let the curriculum be free for the alumni (graduating in 2 years instead? Not doing a bunch of classes you wont use, etc). I agree with the author that the value of education is way overblown, but certainly not 0.