Once upon a time, in order to get into college in America you had to already speak Latin and Greek.

Now even our graduates speak neither!

(this is not necessarily a bad thing; focus on learning what's useful)

But the question is "are we getting dumber?" and "why are we paying so much? What's it all for". I realize that's multiple questions, yes.

(no, we aren't getting dumber. If anything we're getting smarter, but college is far less rigorous than it used to be.) Also, there are EIGHT BILLION people in the world now, so even if only the smartest 1% went to college, in 1800 there'd be 10 million worldwide, and now there'd be 80 million. You're just "competing" against more people. (see also Seinfeld, Mash, and The Last Time We Agreed on What To Watch).

Population aside

You might be the smartest person in your high school (500 people), you might be one of the smartest in your city (100,000) or even among the brightest in your metropolitan area (500,000). But every time you leave one of those circles, you're going to feel a little dumber as you meet smarter and smarter people, each of whom were the smartest in their own high schools. Or, more harrowingly: when they're middle of the road for where they came from. Suddenly you don't feel nearly so special. But it's good to be surrounded by people smarter than you! That's how you grow!

Aside:

I can't remember if it was John Carmack or Scott Alexander, but I remember reading someone talking about getting invited to a conference of some kind, and thinking it wasn't worth their time, precisely because they expected to be smarter or more knowledgeable than many of the other attendants. As I recall, the times they did go they felt like it was actually a good use of time networking, but the initial instinct of "I will be providing more value than I receive" is noteworthy. See also (Skip The) 100 level courses.

Back on Topic

SMBC makes the an argument that college degrees are getting easier to get, and the easier they get, the worse you look for not having one.

A lot of entry level jobs require a college degree in any field, not even a relevant one.

Why?

"College teaches you how to think"
Eh, maybe. I don't buy it. I'll admit that a lot of my most valuable skills that I learned at college I learned outside of the classroom, I also learned a lot INSIDE the classroom, and the things I learned outside where because I had the framework and time to do it. (e.g. hackathons).

It's a signifier.
I believe this more. College is a sign that you're able to jump through (sometimes arbitrary) hoops. It means you're at least somewhat competent in some way, and you can navigate society. Lacking a college degree, you need another sign, and not all employers are willing to respect that other sign.

Some tech companies accept programming boot camps as those alternate signs, some are confident in their interview processes. But typically the companies that accept these alternative symbols are also the most desirable (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Apple), so there's a lot of competition, and without that signal, other applications may have a step up.

When I started writing this, I couldn't find the SMBC above, and now I see that I'm treading old ground.

A colleague of mine (JW) points out that education is free online. If the goal is learning, that's true. (though I do have thoughts about being Self-taught)

Class Mobility

College is the only way that someone from a lower economic class can move up. The arguments I've laid out above make sense if you're already middle or upper class — you have enough Slack that you're allowed to fail.

For people without that privilege, college isn't just a signifier, it's a way to get a better job, and to afford some slack.

See Also

Cost Disease

[This, other SMBC]()
(Skip The) 100 level courses
Seinfeld, Mash, and The Last Time We Agreed on What To Watch
Slack

u/xerxvi on signals and affirmative action:

Exactly. Do we think Wharton I-Bankers remember everything in geography class? The point is to stratify, to identify who's stupid, and who's not. Who can learn and play a game, who can't. Clients don't want to trust millions of dollars worth of businesses to dumbasses that couldn't be bothered to get a 1500+ on the SAT. At least, I wouldn't.

Note that, back in the day, a certain degree was shorthand for a person who was either privileged, or who was smart enough to join the privileged at Yale. Goldman could be assured of some quality by hiring Yalies. Now, with affirmative action, you never know. You could pick a Yalie who got a 1200 on his SAT.

Eric2332 responds to the last point:

You could always pick a Yalie who got a 1200 on the SAT, those were called legacies and athletes. Affirmative action is just adding another group to that club, and at least there is some kind of moral justification for it, unlike the other groups.