[blueblob]

The author comes across as someone who didn't try applying for college and hates everyone that did. The hypocrisy of the entitlement displayed in her first narrative definitely weakens the argument from the get-go.

None of the points are particularly convincing, mostly because she picks the base for each of the statistics as whatever best supports her argument. She starts out only talking about elite colleges because that's where she can find corruption and proceeds to pretend that it reflects the entire degree-granting community. "Case studies" 2 and 3 are both the same argument.

The last point about degrees being an indicator of on-the-job success is actually saying that 2/3 of people with degrees were considered successful by their bosses. Whether 2/3 is good or bad depends upon how it compares to employees without degrees, a statistic conveniently left out.

A degree isn't supposed to be an indicator of on-the-job success; it's supposed to be an indicator of ability to learn, adapt, and manage your time when you are on your own.