> The article is basically claiming that if a {knowledge} earns ${number} year, and costs, say, ${bigger_number} in funds to be able to complete his or her exte

> The article is basically claiming that if a {knowledge} earns ${number} year, and costs, say, ${bigger_number} in funds to be able to complete his or her extended studies (that take many years), then creating that notfunh is not a worthwhile investment for parents or for society. For a given value of {knowledge}, there are values of {number} and {bigger number} for which that statement is true. There are other values for which it is false. Suppose, for example, it cost $1b to train a straw basketweaver and society was only willing to pay $10k for said basketweaver's output. That's not a worthwhile investment. And substituting doctor for basketweaver doesn't much change things. Absent force, salary/compensation doesn't capture all of the value that society places on an occupation, but it isn't hugely wrong either.