What overly simplistic bullshit!!! Using the Ayn-Rand like notion that education is supposed to exist in purely economic terms is the most insipid, idiotic thing I have ever heard of! This, of course, is the kind of hogwash you get when an economist speaks of education.
Secondly, arguing that more workers do work that requires no education, and therefore, we need not educate, is backwards thinking. In the next 20 or so years, these jobs– stocking shelves, working as a cashier, delivering things– will largely be replaced by ROBOTS.
And while it IS true that getting more education does not automatically increase one’s income (I studied music composition), this does not mean we need to eliminate education. There will always be relatively poor, educated people in the arts and sciences. Is there economic worth in an educated person working as an artist, musician, poet or writer? Can art and culture be measured in purely economic terms?
Furthermore, the fact is that MORE people will be unemployed in the future, due to digitization and automation, and this is why we will need MORE education. Educated people start small businesses, have hobbies, write books and blogs, create music and art. Uneducated people become criminals or suffer mental illnesses. An unemployed person with hobbies and interests is less likely to flip out and become a drug addict or criminal. With less work and more leisure time, education will fill people’s time with meaningful, interesting work.
The work of the future falls into three categories: STEM-related industries which will require the geometry and math skills the author so derides, social work which requires soft skills and empathy, and creative work, including art, theater, dance, music and literature. Because creative skills are transferable, and because music education actually IMPROVES performance in math, we need to create schools for the future that will prepare young people for the vocations and avocations they need for the future. Schools do not exist purely for vocational training. Young people learn teamwork, research skills, metacognitive skills and develop lifelong interests (history, languages, physics, politics) and hobbies (painting, poetry) that make them well-rounded individuals, better citizens and, eventually, more productive workers. The metacognitive skills (how to learn effectively, how to analyze and solve problems) and social skills (how to collaborate, put together ideas, present ideas to others) are what matter in the end, not the piece of paper.
Lastly, one thing social scientists have extensively researched is that education for girls means better families. Illiteracy may not cause poverty, but it sustains it. Girls who marry later (after schooling) are better mothers, can help their children with homework and are healthier. Millions of young women die in childbirth needlessly because they married too young. In Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, girls as young as 12 are married off due to poverty. Schooling is a solution to this problem.
In western nations, the education inflation means more and more people get an education, hoping for better jobs. What we need, instead of education inflation, is higher wages for all. After all, the philosophy PhD who just handed you your Latte Grande deserves to be rewarded for his education, too!