College Kids These Days

I recently read an article entitled "What's college good for?" by Bryan Caplan in The Atlantic.  The article was based on his book The Case Against Education, which I have not read. Although the article makes for some interesting reading, the author's main point seems to be that college kids these days are lazy, stupid (no one has actually earned their 4.0 GPA due to rampant grade inflation), and woefully unprepared for the workforce. He suggests that the only value in a college degree is the "signaling" that it provides to potential employers -- hey, this kid got through Yale, therefore they probably have some decent skills even if they did major in a "ridiculous" field like literary criticism.

Caplan seems to suggest that vocational education would be much better for many would-be college students and for the society at large. Does the world really need more sociology majors? Exactly what kind of job are they training for?

There are no specific research studies cited in the article, although there are nods to what "teams of researchers" have found (much of the information mentioned seems to be at least a decade old, however). Caplan seems to want a better match between education and job skills, but it is unclear what that would look like. Much of the job growth since the great recession has been in low wage jobs, though there have also been some gains in relatively technical fields. Of course, even majoring in a technical field is no guarantee that you will find employment. Perhaps we need educators who can better help students predict the future?

It is unclear exactly what Caplan sees as the solution. Is he suggesting more rigorous student tracking in early education, where folks who are not college material are diverted into vocational programs? (Does working fast food count as a vocation?) Does he envision a cap on the number of degrees to confer for "useless" majors, in an effort to push students into the "correct" course of study?

I admit to not understanding his thesis, which he states as follows:

My thesis, in a single sentence: Civilized societies revolve around education now, but there is a better, indeed, more civilized--way. 

Perhaps I would understand his argument better if I read his book. Or is "book learning" the cause of the problem in the first place?