Beware the Anti-College Hypocrite

Is higher education perfect? No, it’s not, and I appreciate a writer who discusses improvements in a balanced, level-headed, and rational way. But there’s a specific writer who I don’t appreciate. Typically, they’re uber-educated, or they attended a prestigious university that’s bolded in their bio.

But that’s not what bothers me.

The bother comes when these “colleged” writers use their energies (and their hypocrisy)[1] to warn others against a college education, using hyper-charged words like “waste” (but it was good enough for them) or “useless” (but it was good enough for them) or “debt” (but it was good enough for them).

The Trade School Cheerleader

A good example of this is Princeton-educated John Stossel, the famed journalist who now says college is an “overpriced scam”:

College is good for people who want to be college professors or who major in fields like engineering and computer science that might lead to good jobs. But that’s not most people. … College students take on loans and spend decades in debt because they believe they must get a degree to be hired. But that’s no longer true. … Good jobs in the trades, like welding and plumbing, don’t require a college degree. Trade school programs often take less than two years and cost much less than college.

Stossel, who happily flaunts Princeton in his lecture bio and expert bio, rants against college in the most cliched, artless, and shallow-thinking ways. Despite his rantings, not every college student is in debt (or “decades in” debt). Not every college degree is a waste (you don’t have to major in “engineering” or “computer science” to be successful). Not every American wants a life-long career in “welding and plumbing.”

And while Stossel publicly warns “you” against college, he remains tight-lipped about this: college was good enough for his son, who’s neither a welder nor a plumber nor an engineer. Instead, Stossel’s very talented son is an award-winning poet and filmmaker. He’s also a graduate of Haverford College, a private and prestigious liberal arts college that accepts just 14% of its applicants and costs around $85,000/year.

The Uber-Educated, Anti-Education Writer

But it doesn’t stop with Stossell. Ryann Liebenthal, the author of “Burdened: Student Debt and the Making of an American Crisis,” says this:

College students … with the talent but not the wealth to make their way through America’s elite institutions — are urged to follow their dreams as far as they can go. … [T]hey’re on the hook for it [the debt], even if their degree, in spite of all the lofty rhetoric, doesn’t land them in the C suite. In that case, the choice was irresponsible, the debt is no good, and it will never, ever go away.

I applaud Liebenthal for discussing student debt (though sometimes in a misleading way), but it’s important to note that Liebenthal graduated from Reed College, listed as one of the Top-25-Most-Expensive-Colleges in America (cost of attendance: approx. $90,000 (2024–2025). She then earned her masters at NYU, listed as one of the Top-10-Most-Expensive-Colleges in America (cost of attendance: approx. $93,000 (2024–2025). This, of course, doesn’t exclude Liebenthal from the student-debt discussion. However, it does mean she benefited from an elite education, which is easier to trash when you have “it” but others don’t.

And like Liebenthal, other uber-educated individuals seem to think “your” college choice is (as Liebenthal puts it) “irresponsible.” Dr. Cheryl Robinson, writing for Forbes, says that “Many College Degrees Are Now Useless.” She writes:

If you invest four (or more) years of your life and tens of thousands of dollars, you better make sure you’re walking away with something more than just a piece of paper and a student loan the size of a mortgage. … Not everyone needs — or wants — a four-year college degree unless you’re aiming for fields like medicine or law.

Despite her free advice to “you,” the “doctor” unapologetically chose a long, time-consuming, and “mortgage-sized” education for herself–-about 7 years, multiple universities, and numerous degrees — without “aiming for fields like medicine or law.” According to her bio, Dr. Robinson’s an “international speaker, media coach, [and] leadership coach/course developer.”

Shhhh: Let’s Keep Quiet About ….

And while many readers will soak this stuff up as balanced and well-reasoned, there’s 3 deep, dark secrets that need a little light:

1. Anti-college writing never applies to the “colleged” writer.
2. Anti-college writing is over simplified and extremely cliched.
3. Anti-college writing is under researched and poorly balanced.

#1. The Hypocrisy of the “Colleged” Writer

Anti-college writers often make a big push for the “trades” … i.e., hands-on, practical work. But how many of these writers are actually trade workers — plumbers, electricians, or truck drivers?[2] Maybe a few, but for the most part, it’s college graduates who are urging you to skip college. So the people flaunting trade jobs — and degrading college — aren’t actually in the trades.[3] They speak not from experience but from some dreamy and unqualified viewpoint.[4] Plus, here’s something that’s telling: none of them are rushing to the trades — academics aren’t becoming rich plumbers, journalists aren’t becoming rich truckers, PhDs aren’t becoming rich electricians.

Then there are those writers who declare your life a “waste” if you choose certain degrees, work certain jobs, or carry certain debt (regardless of how much or how hard you work to pay it off). They build their worldview upon stereotypes (the unhappy teacher, the starving artist, the underpaid social worker) and assumptions (the rich engineer, the blissful programmer, the debtless lawyer). Their lives — and their college experiences — are diverse, nuanced, and complex, but for everyone else, life (and success) is defined by typecasting.

Finally, let’s mix in just a little more hypocrisy … what about the children of these anti-college “colleged” writers? How many send their daughters to welding school? Or teach their sons to value skills over education? The answer: not many. According to the Pew Research Center:

Adults who have at least one college-educated parent are far more likely to complete college compared with adults with less-educated parents. Some 70% of adults ages 22 to 59 with at least one parent who has a bachelor’s degree or more education have completed a bachelor’s degree themselves.

#2. The Cliches

The anti-college movement builds its fiction upon some very shallow and cliched buzzwords: “trades,” “waste,” and “debt.” Lazy writers recycle these words as the gospel, repurposing outliers, exaggerations, and guesswork. Below are the 5 worst of the worst:

— The trades will make you rich

Fortune wants you to know that “Gen Z men are turning to the kitchen instead of college — they can make $170,000 without the burden of student debt.” But how realistic is this BIG payday?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for “Chefs and Head Cooks” is $58,920, with the highest 10% earning $93,900 or more. So in asserting that “Gen Z men are turning to the kitchen … [and] can make $170,000,” Fortune is relying on the most extreme, rare, and outlying national data.[5]

Moreover, Fortune leads you to believe that this payday is universally obtainable in every city and state. However, Fortune’s glitzy “truth” is based on “national” averages, meaning specific salaries will skew much higher or much lower in different locations. Thus, for a chef, the ability to reach $170,000 will be easier (though still difficult) in a Los Angeles kitchen but much more difficult in a Dayton kitchen.

— The trades are free

Notice how Fortune boasts of a magical windfall “without the burden of student debt.” What Fortune withholds is that in order to be a top-earning “professional” chef, you’ll likely need a culinary “degree.” So are culinary (or trade) graduates actually debt-free? According to JPMorgan Chase, probably not:

The average cost of tuition at culinary school constantly changes and highly depends on where you go to school. A few examples of the cost of culinary school for the 2024–25 school year include:

-Arizona Culinary Institute, Opens overlay — $29,500 for a diploma in culinary arts, baking, and restaurant management

-Institute of Culinary Education New York City campus, Opens overlay — $39,000 to $43,250 in tuition and fees for an 8 to 12-month program

-The Culinary Institute of America Hyde Park campus, Opens overlay — $21,660 per semester for tuition, room and board, and fees for both associate and bachelor’s degrees

“Student debt” is a very misleading narrative in the argument FOR trade school and AGAINST college. Typically, “student debt” is offered as a big number, then tethered directly to higher education. At the same time, trade school is offered as a magically “free-ish” alternative. However, what’s purposefully omitted is that “student debt” isn’t just college debt; it’s also trade-school debt.[6]

— The trades are for everyone

I once interviewed a college student who spent two years training in metal machining. When his training was complete, he realized it wasn’t what he wanted to do for the next 50 years of his life. He told me:

I couldn’t find my purpose in it.[7] When you have a purpose, you’re led, or you’re drawn to do something. I love helping people, but I couldn’t see myself helping people if I was sitting behind a machine 12 hours a day.

Without asking what “you” actually want in life, degreed writers (who happily got what they wanted, i.e., a college education[8]) attempt to herd “you” into a non-degreed future. Writers like Liebenthal and Dr. Robinson imply that college isn’t for “you” unless you “land … in the C suite” or “[aim] for fields like medicine or law.” Don’t fit into an elite stereotype? Then by default, you’ll end up a debt-laden, underemployed, unhappy college graduate … right?

With shocking accuracy, anti-college writers look into their crystal balls and predict how your life will turn out … your purpose, your happiness, your regrets … based on a single variable = college! But never will these same writers hint at any failure or unhappiness for those who skip college. Apparently, skilled labor exists in a perfect bubble … perfect money, perfect debt-free living, and perfect fulfillment. But that’s simply not true. Not everyone finds riches as a college dropout. Not everyone wants 50 years as a plumber. And, despite the “six-figure” smoke screen, not every truck driver lives a life of nirvana:

As a truck driver you are going to work some crazy long hours. Up to 14 hours a day to be exact, and if you are local this will not even count as your commute time to get back and forth to your truck. … Most of us will be working up to a 70-hour work week, 6 days a week with only a single day off. This leaves little time or even energy to do the things you want to do on your day off. … Expect to kiss your social life goodbye. Because you will be living in your truck the vast majority of the time.

— College degrees are a “waste”

According Dr. Robinson:

With over a decade of experience in higher education as a professor and staff member, I noticed[9] that some degrees often fell short of providing job-ready value unless supplemented with practical, hands-on skills.

I’m not sure how any higher education professional can simply “notice” the career outcomes of thousands and thousands of graduates. I’m also a higher education professional, also with a decade of experience; at my small, private university, that’s about 8,000 graduates over 10 years. Noticing all 8,000 individual outcomes … job readiness, salaries, and happiness … would surely be impossible.

But for the sake of argument, let’s look at a “fall short” degree as Dr. Robinson calls it (she actually lists 5 degrees[10] that “No Longer Hold Up”). One of those degrees is “visual and performing arts”:

Unless[11] you’re at Juilliard[12] or already breaking through on your own, degrees in acting, dance or fine art often end in debt and disappointment. The industry rewards talent, not diplomas.[13] Graduates are rarely taught how to navigate the business side[14] of the arts: branding, networking, freelancing or managing contracts and finances.

While Dr. Robinson provides no data and no citations for this statement (she just “notices”), there are numerous complexities that she fails to “notice”:

1. ”Debt and disappointment” are not the “often” outcomes of an arts degree (even if Dr. Robinson asserts it — without proof — as the gospel).[15]
2. Many arts graduates “supplement” their degrees with “backup” education (recently, I interviewed a dance major who’s also majoring in finance, along with two business minors).
3. Dr. Robinson ignores the fact that graduates of the arts are more than just “artisans.” Their education and employable skills go well beyond “performance.”[16]
4. An arts degree isn’t as one-dimensional as Dr. Robinson implies; some graduates work in the arts (and are happy); others work in the non-arts (and are happy).[17]

— College is only about money

Of the college graduates who wag their finger and write “Don’t go to college,” most have “gone” (i.e., packed up and moved there) to college. Despite their hair-on-fire concerns about “your” debt-laden future, most took the costly path to a degree.

In all likelihood, these writers didn’t choose cost-effective, cheaper higher education. Instead, they chose “dream” college or “prestige” college, and in doing so, they also chose the full “college experience.” But why would they do this? If college is about one thing and one thing only — money (i.e., salary and debt) — why did these writers leave home (goodbye free housing), skip community college (goodbye cheap tuition), and spend four years learning “on campus” (goodbye cost savings). The reasons are threefold:

1. College is more than a degree. For “you,” college is only about money. But for them, college offered a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Yes, a degree/career is the end goal, but conveniently ignored are the experiences that get you there.[18] This ranges from the non-academic (football, sororities, and friendships)[19] to the deeper, life-changing moments that come from independence, diversity, and exploration.
2. College teaches you something. For “you,” college is only about money. But for them, college taught, trained, and educated. Despite this, anti-college writers like to downplay college and overplay “skills.” But how does an 18-year-old gain the skills needed to compete in today’s job market? “Skills,” in the anti-college world, magically fall from the sky. But in the real world, skills (no matter who you are) have to be sourced (through hard work, training, time, and money), and one way to source them is in the classroom.
3. College is an accomplishment. For “you,” college is only about money. But for them, college was a huge win to be celebrated and trumpeted. For many, a college degree (and the work that goes into it) delivers not just a sense of fulfilment but also a sense of opportunity (i.e., social mobility) and community (i.e., alumni). Undoubtedly, it’s a big accomplishment to “earn” one’s degree; likewise, it’s a big accomplishment to add “Dr.” to one’s resume.[20]

#3 The Research

Data, at least in the media, is often misleading.[21] It’s subjected to spin, or it’s presented in a vacuum, or it’s offered as an anchor point for some outlandish hot take. Usually, the data spills out of some writer’s lazy pencil, unanalyzed and unchallenged and (to some degree) untruthful.

For example, the anti-college masses have been flaunting this as the death knell for college degrees:[22]

A recent study from Intelligent.com found that 45% of companies plan to eliminate degree requirements for certain positions in 2024. Many have already done so. The number of jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree fell to 44% in 2022, down from 51% in 2017.

This (or some version of it) makes the case that a degree is no longer needed because “some” companies are removing their degree requirements. However, there’s 5 fundamental flaws[23] in this reasoning:

1. Removal of the degree requirement doesn’t mean a degreed applicant is now somehow unskilled or unfit or less competitive for these positions.
2. Removal of the degree requirement doesn’t mean these positions are now anyones for the taking. Despite the implication, applicants must still put in the work/training (for some this is college) to be the most qualified hire.
3. Removal of the degree requirement doesn’t remove the heuristic offered by a degree (i.e., versus a non-degreed applicant, a degree will continue to signal knowledge, certain skills, and hard work).[24]
4. Removal of the degree requirement doesn’t mean it’s here to stay. Research has shown that several “non-degree” companies have “backslid,” meaning they actually hired fewer workers without degrees.
5. Removal of the degree requirement doesn’t automatically equal the implied outcome … i.e., the hiring of non-degreed applicants (this is a logical fallacy that anti-college writers bank on). According to a 2024 report from The Burning Glass Institute and Harvard Business School:

[B]y our estimates, [Skills-Based Hiring] has translated to new opportunity for only approximately 97,000 workers annually, out of 77 million yearly hires. Put differently, for all its fanfare, the increased opportunity promised by Skills-Based Hiring has borne out in not even 1 in 700 hires last year [2023].

Regardless of these outcomes, it’s shortsighted to frame college from a single viewpoint … i.e., the viewpoint of corporate America. When it comes to college, there are actually 2 main characters: students and employers. Because even if employers change their hiring practices (and that’s questionable), this doesn’t necessarily mean students are changing their college decisions. According to a recent report from the Lumina Foundation:

More than 80 percent of Gen Z say a college education is “very important” or “fairly important,” a Gallup and Walton Family Foundation survey found.[25]

And as reported by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, college enrollment has been increasing over the last three academic years. The data shows:

• Total postsecondary enrollment is up 4.5 percent this fall [2024] (+817,000; Figure 1.2). Undergraduate enrollment neared 16 million, just 1.0 percent below 2019 levels (+4.7%, +716,000 this fall), while graduate enrollment grew to 3.2 million (+3.3%, +100,000).
• Freshmen enrollment grew 5.5 percent this fall [2024] (+130,000; see Figure 3.1). Building on last fall’s increases, the growth was strongest at community colleges, which added 63,000 freshmen (+7.1%). Overall 18-year-old freshmen also saw enrollment gains this fall (+3.4%, +59,000).
• Undergraduate enrollment grew 2.5 percent in spring 2024 compared to the previous year (+359,000) …. This is the second consecutive semester of year-over-year enrollment growth, continuing the trend from last fall’s [2023] 1.2 percent increase, following years of decline during the pandemic.
• [In fall 2022], freshman enrollment … [began] to rise, increasing by about 97,000 (+4.3%) compared to the previous fall.

Not All College Grads Cry “Waste”

For every anti-college Stossel, Liebenthal, and Dr. Robinson, there are those who think differently. Not everyone’s about the clickable hot take. Not everyone paints college with a superficial brush. Not everyone reduces you to a single identity … your job or your salary.[26]

For example, Beth Ann Fennelly, a professor and former poet laureate of Mississippi, writes in the New York Times:

I have taught creative writing at Mississippi’s flagship university for over 20 years, and I’ve witnessed a powerful outcome: Students who master written and spoken communication can change the world. … See how efficiently students in the poorest state are shunted toward the vocational: It’s not personal. It’s business. This, despite a study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that found that humanities majors are comparably likely to be satisfied with their jobs and employed in supervisory roles as graduates from other majors.

Echoing this, Cody Heck thinks “There is No Such Thing as a “Useless Degree,” writing:

For the last two decades, I’ve seen sensationalized media pointing their fingers at young people, mocking them for pursuing their passion by seeking an education in the arts. … The idea that you should only pursue higher education because you want to make lots of money is (1) weird and (2) unrealistic. Why are people not allowed to pursue higher education and further their knowledge in something that they love? Also, if your entire life’s purpose is the pursuit of money and material wealth then YIKES! You’re in for some sad, dark times, my guy.

And Lindsey Spencer, in the Michigan Daily, says “There is no such thing as a ‘useless’ major”:

Students should not have to attend university with the goal of getting the most financial returns possible after graduation. College is largely about finding your personal passions, and students within certain fields should not face limitations in the future for studying majors that are oftentimes less respected than others. Different students have different goals, and many use their time at university as a stepping stone to pursue a career that may be lower-paying but will bring them a higher degree of individual fulfillment. Still, some data show that graduates with degrees in the humanities tend to catch up to their STEM peers in the long run.

Lastly, Steven Mintz, writing for Inside Higher Ed, pushes beyond the shallow view of college (i.e., money, money, money) and demonstrates that education is more than just a degree:

College affects undergraduates in ways that go well beyond the acquisition of knowledge and skills; college influences their attitudes toward race, diversity, gender, sex and religion, as well as their psychosocial development, contributing to growth in students’ confidence and self-esteem. … [C]ollege had many positive effects; not only were graduates able to write, speak and calculate better than nongraduates, but their ability to reason was more sophisticated, their interest in the arts and culture was greater, they more engaged in civic affairs and were more tolerant, open-minded and self-aware.

Hot Takes Help Only One Person … the Writer

Is higher education perfect?

Of course not; there are a number of ways to make it better.

Is college for everyone?

Personally, I believe it is, but admittedly, not everyone wants a degree.

Regardless, the imperfect world of higher education isn’t made better by the imperfect hot takes of educated writers. Reducing thousands and thousands of individuals (students, graduates, employees) to a few, unsophisticated trigger words … “waste,” “useless,” “debt” … isn’t about making a well-reasoned argument. It isn’t about taking a balanced look at higher education. It isn’t about good research or nuanced thinking. It’s about one thing and one thing only … the juicy headline (and the readers who get sucked in).

[1] There’s a second (nearly invisible) hypocrisy displayed by these degreed writers. The uber-educated will say you don’t need college, but then they’ll use the skills they sharpened in college — writing, communication, analysis, problem solving — to make their arguments. Of course, in making their arguments (and using their college skills), they never mention that these same skills aren’t taught in trade school or, generally speaking, learned in “the real world.”

[2] I’m not implying that plumbers, electricians, or truck drivers can’t write about college choice. Plenty of tradespeople are more than capable of discussing these issues. However, when it comes to “wasteful” college, it’s the uber-educated who make the most noise.

[3] And no, hauling shingles at 16-years-old doesn’t make you a tradesman or a roofer. To be either, the job has to be your lifelong commitment (or, at least, you think it will be). Also, to truly experience a trade “career,” you need to be an adult, balancing all the issues, problems, and stresses that come from a job, family, and debt. But what if you left a trade job as an adult (thus, you are a trade expert), earned a college degree, and now you’re crapping on higher ed? If that’s the case, it raises the question: With trade jobs being so great, why did you leave your job in the first place?

[4] Even more telling, these “academics” aren’t rubbing shoulders with plumbers or truck drivers. They’re circle of influence usually includes other academics and/or college graduates.

[5] But this doesn’t end in “the kitchen.” Citing Joseph Fuller, a professor at Harvard Business School, Business Insider writes:

[W]orking as a truck driver, for example, could bring in six figures — and those types of wages for jobs that don’t require a college degree has spurred a rethinking of the value of higher education.

That’s “could bring in” not “will bring in.” Using similar language, I “could bring in” $368 billion as an entrepreneur; the proof is out there (it’s called Elon Musk). What’s always missing from these statements is the extent of “could.” Does “could” mean very likely or very unlikely? In the case of the six-figure truck driver, the answer leans toward unlikely. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for “Tractor-trailer Truck Drivers” is $54,320, with the highest 10% earning $76,780 or more.

Further eroding this “could” are the years of experience needed. For example, Glassdoor lists “truck driver” as having a salary range that’s between $62,000 to $101,000 a year. But on Glassdoor, this range can be further refined based on years of experience. For truck drivers who have worked “10–14 years,” the salary range is listed as much lower … between $55,000 to $88,000 a year. So yes, you “could bring in six figures” … after 15 years of hard work.

[6] In Tulsa, my hometown, the full cost of attending Tulsa Welding School ranges from $20,000 to $29,000 (depending on the program), with another $14,000 to $20,000 for cost-of-living expenses (e.g., living, travel, and personal). So for a 7-month program, the total cost on the low end is about $34,000; on the high end, it’s about $49,000.

So how does one pay (in just 7 months) these $35,000 to $47,000 in costs? One way, according to Tulsa Welding School, is through … student loans! As a trade school, they actually point prospective students back to FAFSA, same as every college and university in America.

[7] I’m not saying you can’t find purpose in a trade job. I’m just saying that despite the universal directive that young people should choose trades over college, it’s a blatant, bold-faced lie to imply that everyone will be made magically happy (forever and ever) with this hugely important and potentially irreversible life choice.

[8] It’s interesting that these degreed writers spend more time thinking and writing (their passions) than learning “practical, hands-on skills,” as Dr. Robinson calls them. Why is this? The reason is because they have no passion for plumbing or carpentry or welding. Which raises another question: Why are their career passions superior (e.g., journalism, coaching, writing) while yours are trivial, wasteful, and dead-end? If passions (outside of medicine or engineering or computer science) are the “proven” road to failure, why haven’t these professionals left this road for the promised riches of the trades? Again, the answer is simple: their personal passions are an exception to the rule (yours are not). Plus, a lifetime in the trades doesn’t appeal to them (but of course, a lifetime in the trades should appeal to you).

[9] This is now what passes for fact and/or data … “noticing.” It has nothing to do with surveys, analysis, data, research, or comparisons … it’s just one person seeing something, all from a limited, individualized point of view. Anyone can pretty much notice anything, and notice it the way they want. I noticed that my nephew is tall so I can now tell people that he’s gonna play in the NBA.

Actually, I “noticed” something similar from researcher Chelsea Waite, who recently asserted that:

Students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it and if college is really the right thing for them, knowing what they know about themselves.

And what did she base this global conclusion on, other than a research sample that’s very tiny (about 0.0005% of U.S. students), very narrow (about 0.02% of American schools), and very specific (historically marginalized communities in New England)? She based it on some very flimsy and very unprovable “heard from” research:

I led a study for the Center on Reinventing Public Education on high schools in New England specifically, but I’ve heard from many other high school leaders across the nation that our findings really resonate with them too.

Like Waite, I “heard from” my teenage daughter and her friends that they’re all going to college. So by the same logic, students (in general) genuinely believe college is right for them.

[10] One of these “No Longer Hold Up” degrees is “Communications.” According to Dr. Robinson:

Once considered a solid fallback, a broad communications degree has lost its edge. Unless integrated with a specialization like digital marketing, media production or public relations, it often lacks the technical execution and measurable outcomes employers demand.

It’s a very questionable addition to the list, considering the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has predicted:

Overall employment in media and communication occupations is projected to grow about as fast as the average for all occupations from 2023 to 2033. … About 109,500 openings are projected each year, on average, in these occupations due to employment growth and the need to replace workers who leave the occupations permanently. The median annual wage for media and communication workers (such as public relations specialists, news analysts, and writers and authors) was $70,300 in May 2024, which was higher than the median annual wage for all occupations of $49,500.

[11] Of course, I can also play the “unless” game (like Dr. Robinson) but do so in a contradictory, pro-college way. Research shows that:

Workers with a bachelor’s degree earned on average 61 percent more than high school graduates (compared to 40% more in 1990), while those with graduate degrees earned 89 percent more (60% in 1990).

In light of the data, this overly-exaggerated, under-nuanced “unless” must be inherently true:

Unless you go to college, you’re often going to earn 60% less than a college graduate.

[12] This is a lazy take. It implies that there’s only one employable arts graduate in America … the Juilliard graduate. Never mind that the University of Oklahoma (recognized as one of the top musical theatre programs in the country by American Theatre magazine) and Carnegie Mellon (consistently ranked among the top theater schools in the world) churn out employable and successful graduates every year (as do many other non-Juilliard universities).

Moreover, there’s a definite belittling in this hot take. It rings of the bully who insults kids for wearing off-brand shoes. So “unless” you can afford a pair of Nike, what’s the point in showing up to basketball practice? Yes, a college’s brand/reputation can be important in the work world, but that’s not the only measure of a degree. Equally important is the graduate … what they do with their degree, how they use it, or what they take away from it. Dr. Robinson earned her doctorate from Stockton University, which is currently ranked #152 in National Universities. To a superficial thinker, this doctorate is of less value than 151 doctorates in America. But that lazy take is simply untrue. A brand doesn’t magically make someone a success; a graduate still has to hustle, speak, network, perform, ideate, and create.

[13] When it comes to the arts, this simplistic statement — ”The industry rewards talent, not diplomas” — couldn’t be any less true. The industry actually rewards hard work and training; it rewards artists who sharpen and develop their talents, often under the tutelage of mentors and experts (which is something that happens in college).

[14] I agree that the “business side” — branding, networking, freelancing, or managing contracts and finances — is important to the arts, but this raises another point: those things are also important to other jobs too. This being so, is nursing a wasteful degree simply because a nurse isn’t taught the “business side” of her job? Is journalism a wasteful degree simply because networking and freelancing are absent from the curriculum?

Regardless, there’s another question to be answered: Does Dr. Robinson actually know what she’s talking about? Or is she just making assumptions on what is and what is not “rarely taught”? I ask because at my alma mater, Oklahoma State University, theatre majors apparently take several “business side” classes:

Professional Preparation for Performance: This course will prepare students to make the transition from academic theatre to professional theatre. Students will research what is currently happening in the industry, and develop the skills needed to be a working professional. Other topics will include the business aspects of a career in theatre, a plan for personal financial health, the business of creating and producing theatre work, creating a relocation plan to a potential arts market and the graduate school process.

Digital Branding for the Performer: This course surveys the development of radio, television, cable/satellite, and digital media, including the Internet and how it affects the modern actor. We will focus on how technology and industrial control of the electronic media shape an actor’s content. The purpose of this course is to provide you with a solid understanding of how the electronic media function in modern life in terms of the social, political, and cultural impact for the actor. Students will be utilizing film, editing software, social media, website design to create content and audition reels.

Auditioning: This course wIll develop the tools necessary for professional development and pursuit of work as a theatrical performer. Students will prepare for and experience practical musical and non-musical in-person and video auditions. Main topics Include self-tapes, casting, networking, and booking work. Emphasizing professional readiness, students create a professional portfolio-resume, headshots, audition book, and website.

[15] As noted by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences:

How should one measure the value of a college degree? In recent years, policy-makers have focused their attention on earnings as the primary measure of the value of a degree, often using that metric to single out humanities degrees as less valuable than others. But there are other — less tangible — measures of value, such as satisfaction with one’s work and life more generally, that might also be applied to these discussions.

And according to the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project:

Regarding the dividends of arts education, those majoring in the arts may indeed earn relatively lower salaries following graduation than do non-arts majors; however, those working in the arts are also more likely to be satisfied with work than are other professionals — with some in arts-related industries even stressing that they have a “calling” to engage in such work.

[16] Writing in Forbes, Jin Chow answers the question, “How true is this claim today and are there truly no benefits to majoring in the humanities?” She writes:

Harvard economist David Deming calculated the change in required skills for different jobs over time. He found that “help-wanted ads for jobs like software developer and engineer were more likely to ask for skills that didn’t exist a decade earlier. And the jobs of 10 years ago often required skills that have since become obsolete.”

[Soft skills] don’t tend to expire, such as critical thinking, people skills, and problem-solving skills. While much more difficult to quantify and while they do not create immediate pathways to high-paying first jobs, “they have long-run value in a wide variety of careers,” especially in managerial and leadership positions.

[17] From the American Academy of Arts & Sciences:

Also shaping perceptions about the value of humanities degrees is the sense that graduates from the field are less likely than other graduates to be prepared for a variety of occupations, a belief encapsulated in the stereotype of humanities majors as baristas and reflected in pressure on college provosts “to focus on academic programs that have a clear orientation toward careers.” Contrary to the stereotype, humanities graduates — even those without advanced degrees — are widely distributed across occupational categories, similar to college graduates generally and those from the science disciplines.

And this from Jin Chow, writing for Forbes:

[R]esearchers have found that in a diverse array of fields, a large majority of graduates do not end up working in the most common occupation in their specific major. Given that students’ post-college career paths are so difficult to predict based on their academic concentrations, it could be argued that looking at earnings by occupation or career track is perhaps more indicative than college major alone.

[18] Am I saying you should go to college just for the experience? Absolutely not, but it’s disingenuous to imply that your college investment — and those 1460 days of classroom work, interactions, and activities — earns you nothing more than a piece of paper.

[19] Those who devalue the “intangibles” of college will argue everything should be reduced to a monetary return on investment (ROI). But these same people will drive an expensive car not for the ROI but for the luxury branding. Or they’ll purchase luxury clothes instead of shopping at Goodwill. In life, the value of an investment doesn’t always depend on windfall returns and windfall savings. If it did, people would stop wasting money on expensive vacations. Or they’d stop wasting money on their eighth grader’s soccer dreams.

[20] Earning a doctorate is an achievement. Needed or not, learning for the sake of learning is an admirable thing. But it bothers me when a multi-degreed writer warns you against college then quietly enjoys the benefits of extra tuition and extra time spent on their extra education (a masters or doctorate). Ironically, these extras aren’t often needed; you definitely don’t need a masters to be a writer or a doctorate to be a leadership coach. In both cases, “the industry rewards talent, not diplomas,” right?

[21] Consider this very questionable research from Indeed:

Report: 51% of Gen Z Views Their College Degree as a Waste of Money

It’s currently a hot topic (unquestioned and unchallenged) in the press, but how accurate is it? First of all, the “Gen Z” they’re talking about is not the 67 million Gen Zers currently living in the US. Rather, it’s a sample of:

772 U.S. adults 18 and older who are employed full or part time or seeking employment and have an associate degree or higher

And within these 772 U.S. adults, Gen Z represents a much, much smaller subgroup. In the report, Indeed shrinks its sample group across three generations.

Our survey results clearly show a generational divide in workers’ perception of college investment. While only 20% of Baby Boomers consider their degrees a waste of money, that number jumps to 41% for Millennials and a striking 51% for Gen Z.

This means that Indeed’s Gen Z sample size is much, much smaller than 772, possibly just 250 if divided equally across the three different generations (Note: Indeed doesn’t offer specific numbers). Despite this, based on the 772 full sample size, Indeed asserts:

The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For this study, the sample data is accurate to within +/- 4.1 percentage points using a 95% confidence level.

What they glaringly omit is that the width of a credible interval (i.e., more or less uncertainty) is influenced by “smaller” subgroupings. The smaller the subgroup the less credible/less accurate the poll. So in this case, the accuracy is much, much worse than the +/- 4.1 percentage points touted by Indeed. While Indeed seems to hide this, it a very important point that’s revealed in other polling/reports like this one from Justworks:

For this study, the total sample data is accurate to within ± 2.5 percentage points using a 95% confidence level. This credible interval will be wider among subsets of the surveyed population of interest.

[22] This is from Dr. Jason Wingard, writing on LinkedIn. Dr. Wingard — an uber-educated writer — is one of the good guys. He admits there are issues in higher education; however, he doesn’t reduce those issues to lazy hot takes or overreaching cliches. Instead, he says:

[T]here is still great value to be found on college campuses. Broad exposure to the liberal arts and development of analytical and critical thinking skills are invaluable and unique to the college experience. This focused time of growth prepares students to become not only professionals but thoughtfully engaged members of society.

College is still worth it — if students are willing to take the reigns and go after the skills they need for the jobs they want. Today’s students can’t just show up to class and trust that earning a diploma will also earn them a job. They’ve got to be savvy and intentional about where and what they study and how they supplement classroom time with real-world training. Making a college education worthwhile is a lot of work.

[23] There’s a sixth point anti-college writers ignore when talking about the removal of degree requirements. Removal of the degree requirement has zero impact on the career support offered at most universities. College “career centers” provide students exclusive access to internships, mentors, job fairs, corporate partnerships, alumni networks, mock-interviews, and resume building. This career-support “system” offers students resources that can’t be found elsewhere, allowing graduates to jump ahead of the hiring line (and leaving non-degreed workers to fend for themselves).

[24] From the Burning Glass Institute and Harvard Business School:

A hiring manager is comparing a candidate with other candidates from the pool available. Even when a degree is no longer required, it is still a heuristic hiring managers are likely to use to weigh a candidate’s strengths and to assess the risk inherent in choosing one candidate over another.

And this from Sophia Damian, writing for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal:

Perhaps, as Derek Newton of Forbes magazine suggests, it’s not the knowledge or hard skills that students are taught in college which employers value, but rather traits such as initiative, resilience, and persistence, which getting through four years of college requires. Perhaps, as venture capitalist Michael Gibson points out, companies are looking for people who are “willing to finish a long four-year project and take assignments and get them done, show up on time and all that.” Or perhaps companies are simply holding onto the narrative that a college education is a baseline indicator of intelligence.

[25] They also report that:

More jobs than ever — 72 percent — will require education beyond high school by 2031, whether through a credential, certificate, or degree, the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce notes.

[26] Many of these anti-college writers don’t care about the broader impact of their writings; they simply want to jump on the bandwagon, get their hot-take clicks, and move on. However, by framing everything in terms of money, money, money, they reduce young people to winners and losers based on some very narrow indicators: the careers they choose, and the zeros on their paycheck.

Writing for the New York Times, U Penn grad Isabella Glassman claims that this kind of “Careerism Is Ruining College.” While I don’t believe this is universally true (every college is different), she’s correct that “careerism” — which is propped up by the media, the pollsters, and the hypocrites — has been transformed into Gen Z’s singular identity and focus. Glassman writes:

It’s called pre-professional pressure: a prevailing culture that convinces many of us that only careers in fields such as computer programming, finance and consulting, preferably at blue-chip firms like Goldman Sachs, McKinsey or big tech companies, can secure us worthwhile futures. It is an inescapable part of the current college experience, like tailgating or surviving on stale dining hall food. It not only steers our life choices; it also permeates daily life and negatively affects our mental health. …

But what is missing in this race to perceived economic safety is the emotional toll. The number of young adults ages 18 to 25 who have had at least one depressive episode has doubled from 2010 to 2020. Almost two-thirds of college students have reported feeling “overwhelming anxiety” within a given year, and experts have pointed to the cocktail of coursework, pressure to participate in extracurricular activities and concerns over choosing a career as causes.