Is college a waste of time?

The four pillars of an argumentative writing are the thesis, evidence, refutation, and concluding statement. As in the passage College is a waste of time, Stephans goes in detail why he thinks it is a waste with his main objective, for me, that's not an issue; I believe higher education is broken. He gives a personal past stating, "I left college two months ago because it rewards conformity rather than independence, competition rather than collaboration, regurgitation rather than learning, and theory rather than application. Our creativity, innovation, and curiosity are schooled out of us." He then follows with his evidence to support his thesis. "College fails to empower us with the necessary to become productive members of today's global entrepreneurial economy." He then states from Academically Adrift, by two sociology Professors, "36% of college graduates showed no improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing after four years of college." This is evidence to his thesis which supports fact with statistics. Then he goes on with "Fortunately, there are productive alternatives to college. The success of people who never completed or attended college makes us question whether what we need to learn is taught in school." Not all careers need to have a degree, you can become successful without going to college. He goes based on his opinion and attempts to convince you with his point of view to come in agreement with him.His last evidence he proposes says "A major function of college is to signal to potential employers that one is qualified to work. As more and more people graduate from college, employers are unable to discriminate among job seekers based on a college degree and can instead hire employees based on their talents." Not all who graduate have life skills like they should and are more book smart, many bring the talent/skills and don't attend college. In his refutation, he states "Of course, some people want a formal education. I do not think everyone should leave college, but I challenge my peers to consider the opportunity cost of going to class." He then explains how he doesn't think everyone should leave college, he challenges their position and their opponents. Last but not least the conclusion in his argument he states a few common stereotypes of college dropouts to make the disagreement of some people that would be doing individual forms of activities are in fact they in college or not. Stephan makes his conclusion, "We who take our education outside and beyond the classroom understand how actions build a better world.We will change the world regardless of the letters after our names."  reaffirming the same argument that higher education is broken.  
        I believe that Dale Stephens appeals to his audience by explaining how college is not for everyone in addition even if some do not have a proper education does not mean they can’t go far in life. Some circumstances that people need an education is based on their profession of choice. You could compare it the famous saying you can’t judge a book by its cover, which is not always taken into heart. When you look at someone without a college degree does not mean that they are not adequate for a “professional” job, most times they are more qualified for the job than someone right out of college. Depending on the career you choose majority just need a high school diploma, in addition, can be taught on the job only thing is the pay, some will pay less just because of not having a degree. He then explains not everyone wants to spend thousands of dollars on school tuition which causes many having to spend years paying it off. So why go to college and spend the thousands if your profession may not require it?