[corporalagumbo]

I think it's an ad hominem attack only when the character assertions bear no relation to the argument at hand. In this case, for him to call the OP young and ignorant is perfectly relevant, the implication being that he only dismisses higher education because he is not experienced enough to realise the value of it.

[akiselev]

It's not relevant to the argument if there is only a weak implication that going to University would change the ignorant part, not to mention that he provides no backing to the idea that if you go to college you will "grow up" and become less ignorant. This smacks of a circular argument without actually evidence.

[corporalagumbo]

His criticism isn't about the OP's lack of time at University, it's about his lack of life experience. I mean, the guy's a sophomore at college, after all. It's not outrageous to suggest that he's a bit naive and/or idealistic.

He doesn't need to provide a "backing for the idea" - Holloway's point did that adequately. And for me, personally, reading the counterpoint just convinced me of the validity of Holloway's argument further.