Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at what you wrote "I developed marketable skills, secured multiple internships". That does not read like school did that for you and probably you could do the same without school. How much of that CS101 was studying on your own time? Finishing school is signaling that you are person that shows up in the morning for classes and puts up years of his life to do that. By any means I am hiring developer who is signal…
Note: I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with the article. I'm only clarifying what it's trying to say The article is about the fact that school does not show that "developer ... is signaling that he is reliable and comes to work every day" The whole point of the article is there is zero correlation between people who've graduated from college and people who haven't in term of how well they do on the job. It sounds co…
This is not what the article says. It's saying employers hire graduates because they're better employees, but college mostly didn't make them better. This is closer to your option 2. (We are talking about the OP, the Caplan editorial, right?)
Caplan is saying college is mostly an expensive arms race. It has to be expensive (in students' time and attrition through boringness/difficulty, if nothing else) to be an effective signal. Subsidies in recent decades have made it even more expensive.