<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly agree that it is indeed used as a signal: a signal that employers obtain for free, with the costs offloaded to the students. After all, employers don’t pay the costs of education, except only indirectly through higher corporate taxes to support state subsidies. So it’s obviously a fantastic deal for them.</p>
<p>But it’s not a fantastic deal at all for the students, as they have to bear the costs of sending the costly signal. </p>
<p>A far more equitable system would be one in which employers should have to pay for the costs of that signal. After all, they’re the ones who are using the signal. Then we could efficiently attach a true market price to the value of that education.</p>