>The argument for yeomanship also fails to acknowledge that the high cost of college makes it an iffy proposition if the only purpose is to find a well-paying j

>The argument for yeomanship also fails to acknowledge that the high cost of college makes it an iffy proposition if the only purpose is to find a well-paying job. The economists John Schmitt and Heather Boushey found that among 24-to-35-year-olds, almost 20 percent of college graduates “actually do no better than their counterparts who left school after high school,” even before taking college debt into account. This particular point is a very strange argument. Lumping all college majors together and saying that the 20% of the group has an income problem is ludicrous. It's obviously true that the people who majored in pursuit of a well-paying job are less likely to be this troubled 20%. So the author argues that the existence of this troubled 20% means that you should give up on the idea of the pay-oriented major? Does not follow.