[jmj42]

That doesn't follow.

Your fist statement "having a degree demonstrates to employers that you'll be a good employee" indicates that there is value in obtaining a degree. That is, you are more likely to get a well paying job if you have one. As a side note, my experience (family members who are HR directors) is that this is very likely true. However, the effect that this has on the statistics is a real effect, and must be considered when determining the value of obtaining a degree.

Your second statement could certainly be a confounding factor when it comes to the stats, but really doesn't support the claim that society would be collectively better off with less emphasis on formal education. Further, it implies, what I believe to be, an unlikely claim. That is that the majority of graduates would have been successful without the university experience.

I should note here, that I do not, necessarily, support the status quo. I'm a big fan of programs like 20 under 20, YC, and other micro-funding type programs, and would love to see these types of programs expanded. The university systems of the world are in dire need of reformation, but that doesn't mean tossing the entire thing out.

Changing the way education works has always been a long, slow process, but changes are starting to happen. Advocating for a ripe-and-replace "solution" will only cause the current apparatus to close ranks and take a defensive posture. We need to work with the education systems, break through that resistance to change, and move to a system that better suits the needs of today's students, which do differ from students of the past.

[orangecat]

Your fist statement "having a degree demonstrates to employers that you'll be a good employee" indicates that there is value in obtaining a degree.

Yes, to the individual. But it creates an arms race scenario where everyone is induced to spend more resources than is socially optimal. Bryan Caplan addresses this in more detail at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/me_and_the_retu.....

[jmj42]

The problem with Caplan is that he fails to prove that signaling is socially detrimental. The signaling theory makes sense, and I accept that it could be at work, but I'm not convinced that signaling is inherently bad, nor that there isn't intrinsic value in higher education.

Further Caplan tends to focus on liberal arts education, and ignores hard science and engineering. This, of course, means that only part of the education equation is being considered.

I fear, (and this is at risk of completely throwing my argument off the rails with fallacy), that what may be at work (Caplan) is more a case of dogmatic adherence to libertarian ideology. With a lack of demonstrable social implications, signaling becomes largely irrelevant as an argument against the system, as it is.