What an ill-conceived article. On the other hand it could be an interesting cynical ploy. I guess if you could convince enough people that getting a formal educ

What an ill-conceived article. On the other hand it could be an interesting cynical ploy. I guess if you could convince enough people that getting a formal education is worthless or "not worth it" then it could actually increase the market value of those who have one. So, if I was being cynical I should probably just say "Thanks!" But, presuming the intentions are not cynical I found these arguments troubling. Indeed, ironically the one arguing for less education doesn't seem to understand basic elementary math: "Some students will get a better-than-average deal. They'll get more aid or end up in higher-paying jobs. But far too many will lose money." What a joke. Of course "some students will get a better-than-average deal." Why don't people understand averages? That's like those numb skulls who say "half of all students read below the average level; what a crisis!" Also, I'm not impressed with citing Charles Murray. He presents an even more cynical and myopic view. As for the state of universities: sure, many large public universities have some ridiculous courses; I agree with that. However, to quibble with the author's list, History and Philosophy of Dress is not a silly course. There is a lot to be said of a society and it's positions regarding norms of attire. In courses like that the primary subject, in this case "dress," is simply a scarecrow on which to hang a much deeper discussion. Now examples like "Campus Culture and Drinking," that may be a bridge too far and I know many like it. However, my undergraduate institution, which admittedly was private, had no such "mickey mouse" courses and we had comprehensive exams. People who completed all the course work but could not pass the oral exams failed to complete their degree programs. They FAILED. And these were not dumb people. They didn't fail because they didn't turn something in on time. This is in direct opposition to the author's premise that universities are just so easy. That makes me angry. That disrespects many brilliant students for whom the author of this drivel could not be worth of shining their shoes. The idea that the curriculum has been dumbed down is just without merit. Are there mickey mouse degree programs? Sure. Now let's stop knocking down strawmen and deal with reality. I'd like to see the author of this article, who apparently has a very fanciful notion of averages, pass any of my colleagues course on advanced algorithms, distributed computing, differential equations, and the like and then tell me about rampant "grade inflation" or falling standards. As far as the online courseware. That's fine. But I thought education was worthless anyway, right? Anyway, so the answer now is that everyone is going to become autodidacts? Wow, great idea. Autodidactism is fine but let's not be naive with it. So the answer is either be a Ramanujan or go get a job a Super Wal-Mart or something like that, just don't go to college, right? This article is just full of contradictions. Don't get me started on the "Knowledge Tree Shapes."