The thing is, Caplan is a distinguished economist sure, but he is an interloper when it comes to education. As you said, it's also worth noting that the commun

The thing is, Caplan is a distinguished economist sure, but he is an interloper when it comes to education. As you said, it's also worth noting that the community of "distinguished economists" is itself a fairly insular and politically driven field with a lot of ideological assumptions. That's not to say it's all hogwash, but for as much as Economists love to tell you otherwise it's still a soft-science very vulnerable to convenient abuse of statistics. For what it's worth, I skimmed over the presentation he linked in the article. One of the first claims he makes is: "Education and ability (IQ, work ethic, etc.) are correlated, so raw numbers give education too much credit." He then goes on to correct for a "45% ability bias" to income statistics. Without even getting into the problems of correlation vs causation there, it's a perfect example of the foundational assumptions that got his work rejected to begin with.