FWIW, I think people are better off with the eponymous well-rounded education, but I also think they're better off with 5 years of global travel, too, but that isn't the kind of hoop-jumping social standard (yet) that a 4 year college degree currently is.
So much of "going to college" isn't about the well-rounded part for probably 90% of the students -- it's about achieving some vocational credential that employers want before they will hire someone. In many cases, the vocational education really has no bearing on the actual vocation. A degree in marketing doesn't actually provide you with the specific education to do any specific marketing job.
And even where this is some kind of specific vocational skill being learned (engineering, medicine, etc), how much of even those educational experiences are spent on classroom instruction that's actually vocationally beneficial? Could we train civil engineers in 3 years instead of 4 by cutting out the crap? Could we train doctors in 6 years or even 5 if we cut out the nonsense? Is it REALLY vocationally beneficial for a doctor to have a semester or year of organic chemistry?
There's so much hand-wringing about the cost of college but almost never does anyone question the underlying assumption that the college experience as we know it is actually beneficial. Much of it seems to be a way of socializing the costs of corporate HR screening and training, much of which would be better for the corporations to do themselves, so they can focus on the specific attributes and skills they want.
And if you think about it, it doesn't even socialize those costs well -- the in-demand jobs demand higher salaries, so where there is demand for workers the corporation is paying some of the inflated educational costs themselves. It all seems to be a giant pork barrel for Universities, who manage to jack of tuition relentlessly without ever reforming a sclerotic educational system that doesn't really produce well-rounded graduates anyway.