Other than the overt sexism, ("They are no smarter than you, and they are definitely way less organized and far less attentive to detail. So go show them what y

Other than the overt sexism, ("They are no smarter than you, and they are definitely way less organized and far less attentive to detail. So go show them what you are made of.") this article makes some fair points. That said, the author seems to be on a vendetta against post-secondary education. H asserts that an education "probably won't" pay for itself. This is a total falsehood. The nontrivial positive returns of collegiate degrees have been documented by numerous studies. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/education/21college.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/education/21college.html?_...) Moreover, this is not, as he asserts, only true of top 25 schools. (http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/bs_collegeROI_0621.html http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/bs_collegeRO...) On this front, he appears to be talking out of his ass. I do agree that the world has changed drastically over the past 3 decades, and that the precedents for education and occupations have irrevocably changed for the worst. I thinks some qualification is necessary for his contention about "making things." This is not necessarily a recipe for success, especially if what you make is superfluous. If the economy tanks, you'll still be the first to go. To ensure career resiliency, one needs to pick a field that 1) won't be obviated by technology in the near future, and 2) is fundamental to society and thus will never go away. If anything, I think that this skews towards more abstract fields that are removed from physical labor. All physical labor can or will be able to be performed by technology at far greater efficiency and far lower cost. Machines won't be able to think anytime soon, which is why coding is such an attractive profession. Computers aren't going out of fashion, and will, for the foreseeable future, require people to write software for them.