It's also useful, as is the case with many topics these days, to think of risk. Right now, an increasing burden of risk has been and continues to be pushed dow

It's also useful, as is the case with many topics these days, to think of risk. Right now, an increasing burden of risk has been and continues to be pushed down onto the student -- in the U.S., at least. A similar thing happened with pensions versus self-managed retirement funds (e.g. 401k's) beginning in the 1970's. Not that stable career paths existed for all time before this, nor managed retirement. But the changes do reflect the current, um, "delta". Where this leads, I don't know. However, a certain amount of stability seems necessary, to me, for fostering advanced, complicated systems including social, employment, and production systems. If everyone's an "entrepreneur", I don't know how we're going to e.g. build jet engines. (I exaggerate for the sake of my point.) I've met those "specialists in cross training". They're called management. A few are genuinely good at it; many aren't particularly good at anything. Addendum: On the other hand, much of Blank's post reads like a variation on the argument for a liberal arts education. He even mentions liberal arts as a component. However... Those liberal arts people need at least a modicum of post-education investment in order to get up to speed in a particular, current area of focus. (And that's when they're good, and really educated: Something neither all liberal arts degrees nor all liberal arts students produce/become.) We're in a marketplace that won't even go that far. Again, placing the risk on the student venturing to pursue that path. P.S. I do think that pre-graduation work is a good idea. I also think that people should be paid for it. Unpaid internships introduce all kinds of distortions, including distortion of the work experience for the interns. Level the playing field, and make it real.