Yes and no.
The value of a post-secondary education is not so much in what particular things you learned, which will of course becomes increasingly dated over time, but in what you learned about perseverance, critical thinking, communicating [in writing] (this one is huge), and how to learn. Assuming the student invests at all in their college experience, they can't help but mature in these areas, and emerge as big[ger]-picture folks. Note that I'm not saying that you can't develop these traits in other ways.
So, I contend that the true "value" of post-secondary education does not diminish with time. That said, the superficial value certainly decreases (especially within academia itself, ironically) as you pointed out, because, "employers will care less about your college days and more about what you've been doing since then."
Where did Google get this correlation theory? It seems completely counter to my experience of human beings as individuals.
Hmm. Anecdotal assertion from a
"You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!""
Uncalled for, and unnecessarily cruel, especially given that it is impossible to know.
"Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego."
MS is not itself hereditary. Diabetes and heart disease can be managed fairly easily, if not cheaply. Properly managed, personal freedom is in no way compromised. As to cost, what would it cost to fully screen and then terminate fetus after fetus? By the way, pointing the finger at someone else's "fragile ego" is a bit misplaced. We're all in that particular boat, I think.
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra