That's exactly what the article is saying. It, however, argues that the presence of women is what has caused that decline in value.

> In the particular case of college it's been ever more clear for more than ten years now that college is mostly only valuable if you treat it as a trade school

Right, while it posits that the historical value of college was that it offered a higher social status to those involved, which for those not reading between the lines means that it offered improved mating opportunities for men. Now that women are going to college in droves, men are no longer seeing a higher social standing from attending college – with it placing them on the same social plane as women. So men are moving on to the "next big thing" that offers higher social status today.

> something which cannot be prestigious because it is common and cannot command large wages.

It seems you are essentially on the same page as the article. I suspect that it would suggest that money is only a proxy for status, while you seem to be suggesting that status is a proxy for money, but I'm not sure that makes any difference in the grand scheme of things.