Logical fallacy: "New technical information doubles in two years - therefore half of what a student learns is outdated in 2 years. "
Correction: none of what he/she learns is outdated in two years.  The only way this "problem", if it were real, could be solved is to compress the educational timescale, so in one year 1-1/(2^½) = 1-1/1.414...= 1-.707= .3 of what they learned is outdated, so then shorten the educational timeframe to 1/2 year and get 1-1/(2^¼) = ...  and you'll find you never quite get to "0" outdated  information.  But time continues marching on after you get out of school, and you keep falling behind anyway. Okay, so why is the model useless to help solve the perceived problem?  Because it claims that the amount you learn in that one or two years is irrelevant, only how long you spent learning it.  So if you pick your nose and learn nothing else in two years, you're at the same disadvantage as someone who crams it all in.  The only way out of the trap this information model presents is this to learn at an ever-increasing rate every day of you're life, 'til you're brain explodes.  Nope - all wrong.  You just need more people who are educated, more specialization, and as natter taught us: (link) "A functioning socio-economic infrastructure (as in, one that is automated and self-organising) is all that's needed"  Duane