This article was pretty good at identifying drawbacks of higher education. (unlike the recent article by the literature PhD) There's so many assumptions surrou

This article was pretty good at identifying drawbacks of higher education. (unlike the recent article by the literature PhD) There's so many assumptions surrounding a PhD degree. "I'll make more money!" Maybe, but it takes a lot of years to make up for making $0 for several years. "the only jobs for a PhD is in academia" depends on the subject, last I checked google hires lots of PhDs. "I'll only work 5 hours a week!" just because you only saw your professor when you showed up for class does not mean those were the only hours your prof was working. "PhDs are super smart!" maybe, or they're just good at jumping through hoops. The article pointed out that there is a glut of PhDs compared to available academic jobs. But then laments that only 57% of PhD students finish the degree within 10 years. The author seemingly argues that more people should graduate sooner, and increase the glut? It's not about smarts, self-motivation and leadership are required to finish a PhD. If someone expects to have their hand held and be told what to do, they might never finish. The article also says that these students are the smartest of their class. If that's true, then they are smart enough to view the job market and weigh the pros and cons of higher education themselves. (if they can't do that, then I'd argue they are not the brightest in their class after all)