"When experts and journalists spend so much time talking about the limitations of education, they almost certainly are discouraging some teenagers from going to college and some adults from going back to earn degrees. (Those same experts and journalists are sending their own children to college and often obsessing over which one.)"

This particular totally misguided comment is a good example of the bias of this article: As a upper-middle class parent, if I can send my son to Berkeley, MIT, Urbana Champaign, etc. then of course I want him to go those colleges and of course they add value. That's not the point.

The point is about students from poor neighborhoods getting hammered about the value of college and this being presented as the only way they can get a better life. Then, they end up in brain-dead diploma mills with very debatable effect on their employability.

I had this debate many times with teachers in the Chicago South side high school that I mentor: Compare attending a place like Illinois Central College for four years OR spending that time learning about a craft, e.g. programming (yes, I'm biased) and then trying to attend, say, Hacker School or something similar. Granted, this is not an option for all students but things like this should be mentioned to students and put on the table as an option. Instead, when I mention this and similar options teachers and students look at me alike like I'm from Mars.

The reason is that high school counselors and teachers whose job it is to guide disadvantaged students do not have a clear understanding of these option for the simple reason that when they got educated these option did not exist.