[potatoyogurt]

I don't get it, I don't understand how the author of the article has a PhD if this is what he thinks. Like,

> Why do advanced-math classes bother with proofs almost no student can follow?

Because that literally _is_ mathematics, and the point of working through them is because students can actually understand them and learn to do the same thing with new problems. How does he expect anyone to create or discover anything new with just arithmetic 101?

There's a kernel of a good argument in that signaling probably is one of the main values that students get from a college degree, but it's overstated to such a degree that it crosses over into idiocy.

[mrep]

Economic signaling is a thing in economics [0] and it isn't talked about much as while they are jobs that do "require" college degrees while not really using the education taught and thus just essentially use it as a signal, most economists think lots of useful concepts taught in school are used in higher skilled jobs requiring degrees and thus aren't just used as a signal.

This guy likely just picked an economic topic that isn't talked about much and wrote a book about it to sell his brand/make money by focusing on the minority cases and using clickbait articles like this where he equates all college degrees as useless signalling and thus not worth the cost of education to promote it.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

[watwut]

Also, it is not actually true that almost no students can follow math class. Math classes too difficult to be followed by literally most get easier over time. The article author exaggerate on those points to the point of lying, so that it is easier to make points.

Also I did not spend all that much time by history or poetry in school. It is possible to select overly too many such courses I guess, but it is in no way necessary or expected.