What I find disturbing here is the complete, total, hegemonic shift to thinking of education as job-training.
Most of us live in countries with representative governments (those who don't probably would like to if the movements in Africa and elsewhere are any indication). One of the funny things about this sort of government is that in order for it to function properly, it requires that all participating citizens have a basic understanding of the issues of the day. For better or worse, in the modern world, this requires a fairly extensive, general (liberal, little 'L') education.
For example, there aren't many people who apply the scientific method directly at work (though many jobs benefit from clear, logical thinking). But having an understanding of what "science" entails is critical to a number of public debates.
The same goes for economics, history and even literature and philosophy. These are all subjects that most people don't really need to do their jobs, but that are incredibly important for countless public issues.
For example (and at the risk of starting an unrelated argument, please refrain), Ayn Rand seems to be popular these days. But I wonder how many people out there have actually read "Atlas Shrugged" or "Fountainhead" carefully, or even have the skill necessary to do so.
IMO it's impossible to expect the education system to be more holistic and less training-oriented unless the costs drop to the point where it's realistic to pursue it knowing there is not necessarily a monetary reward at the end.
First, higher education needn't be solely one or the other. There have also been some important points brought up elsewhere in the comments about the "sticker price" versus what students actually pay.
Additionally, this is a complex issue, especially in the US where the perception of the value of a degree can vary wildly depending on the institution in question. One part of the original article that struck me as true is that high school students should be better coached during the process of choosing a college or university and then choosing a major or concentration.
The idea behind general human capital, though, is that it actually increases the ability of the student to thrive in a dynamic economy. The returns on an education with a significant "holistic" component are, at least in theory, higher than those on an education that is weighted toward job training.
For example, while it is certainly true that borrowing $100,000 to study pottery at a large university is probably not a good idea, there are enough colleges and universities in the US that if a student really wants to study pottery, he can do so for much less (for example, at a community college, where tuition costs are still quite reasonable).
But really, pottery (to continue the example, though this is applicable to many fields frequently cited as "useless") is closer to specific human capital. This actually helps explain why the students commonly featured in articles about these issues can't get jobs. They have been given "job training" for jobs that don't pay well or hardly even exist.
If their programs of study had been more "holistic" then perhaps they would be in better shape today (of course it should go without saying that there are counter-examples out there, I'm just talking about trends and averages here).
So in some sense, it seems that part of the problem is that we already focus too much on "job training", especially for low-return jobs. Of course a degree in finance (business schools do a great deal of job training) is far more lucrative, but the principle is the same.
For example, a web developer might think that studying English or history would not help them do their job at all, but business is filled with contracts, memos, emails, and other writing that carries all kinds of subtext. The abilities to critically analyze and construct written arguments are invaluable in the business world. English or history educations teach these abilities.
It's like a mental martial art...you might not need it much, but if you don't know it, you're easier to beat up.