> the median lifetime earnings are $655k more for men with a bachelor's degree than those who only have a high school diploma when controlled for other factors

> the median lifetime earnings are $655k more for men with a bachelor's degree than those who only have a high school diploma when controlled for other factors It is interesting that you didn't point out that the difference is only $170,000 between both men and women with only a high school diploma and those with a college education (but not a degree). 'tis little more than a rounding error. Yet, your conclusion that we need to double down on education? The market clearly doesn't care about education. What the market does care about, as it relates to college, is two things: 1. Supply management of labour. 2. The product of college research. I think you can make a reasonable case that #2 is dependent on said education. That is what a bachelors degree is designed to prepare you for, after all. But I see little evidence that all but a tiny fraction of college-bound students have this intention. The vast, vast majority will, once done with their studies, scurry back to the working world and get a job just like they would have otherwise done. This is where the waste is found, and why we have a problem. While college may be a convenient place to administer a supply management system, it should be apparent to you that this can happen outside of the college system just as well. We can point to all kinds of examples around the world where supply management is done without association with academia. Be careful to not conflate the two. If you have a realistic plan to leverage #1 or #2, college is a reasonable choice. But as we are talking about reform, #1 is logically separated from the college system, leaving only #2. And that's fine. College doesn't have to disappear. It is a useful institution for a tiny fraction of the population with a particular goal, but to be seen as a place for all is incredibly dubious. > Degree attainment is now far less concentrated in the upper class. Wealthiest, not upper class. I mean, think about it. The street term for upper-class is "retiree". While 20-year-old retirees aren't completely unheard of, you're probably thinking of someone who is elderly when I say that word. And for good reason. Indeed, it usually takes a lifetime to amass enough wealth to enter the upper class. And that connotation is quite relevant here as, let's face it, the vast majority of retirees aren't contending with 18 year olds failing to spread their wings. They are far more likely to be concerned with why their 40-year-old children haven't produced grandchildren yet. Upper-class clearly has little relevance here. In fact, you even said yourself that more than half of the cohort attended college. Something I concede to. I revisited the data soon after posting and it did appear to just eek across the 50% threshold, but it was too late to edit my comment by the time I got back to it. I don't think anyone is under the impression that ~50% of the population are upper class. But these students are still more likely to come from the wealthiest families. > It's not within the Federal government's jurisdiction to relieve a major tranche of mortgage debt. And here we just got finished talking about 2009. You know, when the US government relieved a major tranche of mortgage debt to not see the economic downturn spiral into economic collapse. The federal government is just people. If this is what the people want, what is going to stop it? A space alien? It will not come consequence free, but neither will forgiving student loans. > You keep talking about the "fun" of college, like it's a four-year vacation. It's not. I don't know, it had better be for that measly $15,000 you stand to gain from it... Let's look at this another way. If you do realize the full $655k lifetime earnings you spoke of earlier, that's equivalent to approximately $55,000 more earned in your early 20s (compound interest, yo). If, instead, you put all that hard work and energy into a job/second job rather than going to school, you couldn't bring in an additional $13,000 each of the four years? That's not very much money. You are quite right that the typical person who doesn't want to attend college most likely doesn't want to attend college because they don't want to (or can't!) put in that hard work and won't extend the effort into a job either, but for someone who has already accepted the hard work, $655k is really poor capitalization of time. If we assume you spend 30 hours per week in college-related activities (class time, studying, homework, etc.) over the course of six months each year, that means $13,000 is only $18 per hour away. Just barely above minimum wage in an increasing number of jurisdictions, and about the price Wendy's will pay for you to flip burgers these days. That's all you think college is worth? That's what your numbers tell us. Let me reiterate that. All one needs to do is spend 15 additional hours per week working at Wendy's over the course of four years from ages 18-22 to see an increase of $655,000 in lifetime earnings. And that's what you think the future of 40-some-odd million people rests on? Consider me amused. > Most people who don't advance beyond a high school diploma struggle with their careers. There is some truth to this, but you have framed it poorly. You make it sound like not advancing beyond a high school diploma is the cause for struggle in the careers, but we know the struggle is what keeps people from advancing in both school and in their career. With ~50% of young people attending college, they've pretty well slurped up everyone who doesn't have such struggles. Therefore, of course most people who don't advance beyond a high school diploma struggle with their careers. > Furthermore, this isn't you being "punished". Debatable. Let's remove college from the picture for a minute as people get weirdly emotional about it for some reason (which is telling in its own right, but I digress). Since you mentioned a vacation, let's go with that instead. So you go on a fun vacation and rack up debt to do it. I too wanted to go on that vacation, but I stayed home because I didn't think I could afford it. You return, and then struggle because you can't bear the debt burden. I end up having to repay it for you. – Not only did I miss out on a vacation I would have enjoyed, I had to pay for yours. How is that not reasonably considered some kind of punishment? If you are being earnest with us here, I'll get my travel agent on the horn. I'll gladly take a trip on your dime. Something tells me that isn't going to happen, though. Something tells me that you are only on board when you see yourself as the benefactor.