This post didn't draw many comments, but I suspect it's because you nailed it so perfectly. I will, however, take issue with the implication that a better education is what solely drives higher wages. I think that we can't ignore the effect of higher productivity from technological advances that often have nothing to do with one's education. Anyway, this is a good post.

I remember in my senior year in Electrical Engineering at Purdue, I was in a 400-level Russian Politics class (on a lark). One day, before class, the other students there questioned me as to why I took the class (most of them did not seem to enjoy it much, and were there for the elective). It seemed silly that someone would be taking the class just to learn something interesting.

It was at this time I realized that it was likely that most of the liberal arts education at Purdue was probably not on the same academic level as most of the engineering ciriculum. I was saddened by this fact, because I know that a liberal arts education could be made to be just as academically difficult (and therefore, I would submit just as useful). Does anyone know of such a school?

I only have a beginner's understanding of economics, but it seems to me that what drives higher wages is a scarcity of eligible workers in relation to the demand for them (ignoring unions and government interference for the moment). The more people get certain skills, the less valuable they become. One place this has already happened is in computer programming, a well-paid field twenty years ago but now less valuable due to a glut of skilled workers (incuding, but not limited to, those overseas).

Thus no matter which direction colleges orient their curricula, if they do it in unison, the skill set they teach will be of minimal value from a salary perspective. It's much better (both for the students and for society at large) to have a variety of curricula. Of course, at the rate we're going, just being able to write in complete sentences will soon be a scarce commodity.