This author seems to think the value of prestige arises from nothing; as if the fact that someone can get through one class on open courseware means they are equally qualified as any other graduate. One quote in particular stuck with me &quot;few students are accepted to Yale but almost all graduate&quot;. What exactly did he expect? Why would admissions accept people they think are unlikely to be successful? The whole article is written as if candidates are chosen by a simple dice roll, uniformly taken across the population (mirroring those who now have access via the internet).<p>The value, from an employment standpoint at the very least, is not what you learned in school, but the reasons you were selected to participate in the community doing the learning.  The elite institutions spend considerable time and expense collecting a curated group of top performers to a single location.  From a creative and developmental perspective this is huge for the students. From a signalling perspective this huge for employers.<p>My prediction, perhaps as laughably misguided as I think this article is, is that the paridime shift will come from employers. As taboos against training wear away, and groups begin to see how much cheaper it can be to hire and train high school graduates the demand for college graduates will abate. This probably won&#x27;t effect the Columbias, or the Yales of the world, but will likely eliminate most of the hugely expensive less prestigious institutions.