It's pretty disingenious to imply the only thing traditional degree-holding grad students have over somebody with only industry is a "piece of paper". I say this as a former grad student who (with a degree) came out of industry. There are plenty of underwhelming students with only academic experience, but if you had industry-credit and a few terms, where would you get the other skills that I'd argue are far more important than practical experience?
That's the situation I'm in, and somebody recently suggested I check out WGU. I was thinking of doing a Master's degree, and it is an absolute bedrock requirement everywhere I've looked that you have a Bachelor's to apply to the Master's program. Would I get more out of spending 8 years doing a BS part time in the traditional way? I'm sure. Am I going to do that just so I can do a Master's? Fuck no. But if I can get the piece of paper in 6 months, that's starting to seem doable.
The UK option is interesting. For those curious, here's the bit explaining that they normally expect a Bachelor's but will consider experience: https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/softeng/study/index.html
And the total cost is ~$50k: https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/softeng/study/Fees_2022-23.pdf
But there is not more to being locked out of working abroad, high-level corporate jobs, and certain fields than a piece of paper. A seriously below average traditional student has access to all of these things, while a high performing, high knowledge person doesn't, simply because they took a different life path.
They assumed they could just continue working, as they started without a degree and made a career out of it.
Then they hit hard walls. Because they never finished out a couple credits in nonsense courses.
But I belive the author was returning to school to get an official qualification after some years of work-experience. (or did I read that wrong?) in that context the ancillaries are less valuable.
Certainly I think a place that tests knowledge for the purpose of recognizing levels achieved already through work experience is a really valuable part of the education chain.
I don't disagree with that. I just disagree with the author for discounting the value of both the social status and network connections that traditional, elite universities offer.