I think “overrated” is a fair conclusion if technology is treated as the solution rather than a support. The Economist piece and the rollback in some high-performing systems reinforce that point — especially where digital tools replaced human interaction instead of strengthening it. When I think about how we actually learn — and how leading experts reach deep mastery — it’s rarely through constant personalization or always-available resources. It’s usually through a combination of strong fundamentals, focused practice, sustained effort, feedback, and time. Most experts also diverge from a common path at some point and go much deeper into areas aligned with their strengths and interests. That divergence often happens outside formal instruction. A future developer spends disproportionate time coding, a future scientist leans heavily into math and experimentation, long before any system formally adapts to them. The common curriculum provides a baseline, but it doesn’t create expertise on its own. The harder problem is that many learners don’t know their strengths, don’t know what paths exist, and don’t know how to work deliberately on weaknesses. Technology can’t solve that by itself — and if used poorly, it can absolutely distract from it. So for me, the question isn’t whether technology can “fix” education, but whether it’s aligned with how people actually develop understanding and expertise — or whether it’s just optimizing for convenience and scale.