I feel compelled to point out that Luther had a college degree. This may feel like snark (and I've certainly condensed it for pithiness), but it's at the heart

I feel compelled to point out that Luther had a college degree. This may feel like snark (and I've certainly condensed it for pithiness), but it's at the heart of my issue with this piece. It tries to argue that education is broken, that it is useless, and that no standards should apply for sake of individual liberty. Those don't go together. If it's useless, you don't have to care that it's broken. If no standards apply, it can't be broken. My personal opinion is that the author would've been better off to focus on the "broken" part and omitted the other two - both because they muddy the argument, and because, from my POV, the latter two are detrimental to a working education system.