How would this same conjecture apply to History, Literature, Biology, Physics, etc etc?
How much of any advanced learning do most people use in their day to day lives? All of it in the periphery would be my counter-conjecture.
I was always taught trade schools were for learning a particular skill. College was to equip you with the knowledge and ability to think logically required to have a better life.
I had the same thought. Follow the author's conclusions, and you'll end up rejecting college as such on the basis of its apparent lack of "utility."
But why should everything be tied to the demands of the workforce? At some level, saying "Don't bother learning calculus because you'll never need it" seems akin to saying, "Don't bother looking at the Mona Lisa, because you'll only ever have to read road signs."
Is there no intrinsic value to learning? No need to be connected to the cultures of the past (or the present)? Nothing to be gained by studying all those ideas that underlie those CAD programs?
The author traces the myth back to Sputnik. It sounds to me much more like every kid who's ever wept over their algebra homework and asked "When am I ever going to use this?"
How much of any advanced learning do most people use in their day to day lives? All of it in the periphery would be my counter-conjecture.
I was always taught trade schools were for learning a particular skill. College was to equip you with the knowledge and ability to think logically required to have a better life.