>>85098728
If you are dedicated enough, you can learn pretty much everything college would teach you without having to pay so much money or do shit you don't want to do.

>>85098730
>If you are dedicated enough, you can learn pretty much everything college would teach you without having to pay so much money or do shit you don't want to do.
Of course, but that hasn't been the main reason you go to University for a while. It's more for the diploma and connections.

>>85098728
if you're in usa it is overpriced.
>>85098730
nothing really replaces having a person with a doctorate teach you things, they can give you insights you otherwise wouldn't come to on your own just from reading by your lonesome.

>>85098756
>if you're in usa it is overpriced.
It's overpriced, but what a lot of people who complain about it don't mention is that if you're strong academically, a lot of schools will just give you a full scholarship or a GA position that waives the tuition fee entirely and even pays you a small salary.

>>85098728
For the majority of people undergrad is overpriced and for goycattle.
If you're going to a 30+ rank school and paying for it you're getting scammed.
It only gets worse if you're dumb/naive enough to go to grad school. Sure a phd program is probably free/"paid", but the opportunity cost is huge relative to the salary premium, assuming you're even going for anything marketable in the first place.
I love learning, I love education, but modern academia is just a meatgrinder where administrators wring the passion out of the youth to feed on their vril.

>>85098765
>If you're going to a 30+ rank school and paying for it you're getting scammed.
I pretty much agree there for the US. If you're going to a school like that you need a full ride.

>>85098763
yeah but the dumb people complaining about it being overpriced and for goy cattle are probably too dumb to get a scholarship lmao
also i dont think that is as common as you think and applying for scholarships can be tough.

>>85098778
Yeah, maybe my perspective on it is skewed because I did good research before I applied. Paying out of pocket is pretty much always a terrible idea unless it's one of the very top names that can get you a high-paying job instantly.

Because I'm hypereducated and know better now. I've attended the private schools. I had more money spent to put me through school pre-college than you and your children's children will ever spend on college. I got all the scholarships and grants. I've taken classes and enrolled in programs all across the country and technically have enough credits for what would be an absurd number of degrees. I've had the privilege of being able to fuck up and fail out, reapply elsewhere, and succeed. I've been in the top 1% of my class, I've been in the bottom of other classes, and I've been just a dude in yet further classes. I've been to rural schools, big city schools, community colleges, small colleges, STEM colleges, liberal arts colleges, implicitly white colleges, ethnic colleges, colleges on both coasts, colleges in the middle of the country, and colleges in the middle of nowhere. I've been the big man on campus and I've been a loser and I've been just a dude. I've had ALL the experiences and can compare them against one another.
I have never been more convinced in my life that education in this country is a top-down population control scheme from the very beginning and that the trace elements of true nobility left in it is wasted on all of us. Yes, the flame of civilizations and of the western canon should be kept lit, and yes, colleges are supposed to do that. But, if I'm totally honest, I'm at the point now where I think some people just have greater inner radiance than others and that the frankly third-world-minded endeavor of training people to ape nobility is pointless AT BEST. The dumbfuck redneck who's all, "She thinks she's so smart with her Masters degree; all she did was go to daycare" or "they just brainwashed her to be a communist for 4 years" has more of a point than most educated people will ever admit. Most of us will keep up the lie as it applies to others to save our own mythologies. Not me. I've seen behind the curtain and it's bullshit.

>>85098728
Average robot in the present can't get admitted to college in the first place. Hell, most of the time they're too lazy to put in the minimum fucking effort to get through community college (the 13th grade). And keep in mind this is after the shartmartistani education system got gangraped by no crack babby left behind and common core (derogatory in itself; you zoomoids are probably too retarded to know what the first word of this parenthetical even means).

>>85098793
Damn, you flunked out of every school in the country at every level at least once. That's a hell of an achievement.

>>85098728
Because the purpose of college isn't education, since education isn't a requirement for success.

College is for networking, which robots hate

>>85098794
I go to community college, I live in a blue state and I'm broke so it's practically free. Met my fat girlfriend there.

>>85098728
What campus is this? Beautiful architecture.

>>85098814
Princeton East Pyne Hall

>>85098810
And you'll flunk out before graduating with an associates (already a failure lmaoooooo) like the vast majority of community college retards I've had the displeasure of knowing. See you at the soup kitchen soon, dumbass. Follow the rules and maybe I won't have to call security on you and Ms. Hambeast. Two portions max, m'kay?

>>85098820
Damn don't know what set you off anon but hope you chill out a little.

>>85098793
This dude was every student in America in every socioeconomic background as every race in every era gatdamn

>>85098829
You need to be reminded of your place before you cause trouble. Simple as!

>>85098837
Well ok anon, you keep putting people in their place on /r9k/ on a thursday night lol

>>85098820
As has been stated in this thread education is completely useless without networking, and the average robot is terrible at networking so this whole conversation and thread has been resolved. It wouldn't matter whether they went to a four-year college or not.

>>85098847
At least ~10 years ago most robots would have actually made it to a 4-year college in the first place. Now they can't even get anywhere to flunk out of. lol, lmao even.

>>85098847
You gain a lot from the diploma if its a good school though. Even without networking.

>>85098886
Really? What would those things be? Projects don't count, because you can do that without a diploma. Internships gained through a university don't count either, because that is part of networking/only possible through networking. I'd like to know these so-called benefits, unironically. Please enlighten me, I would really appreciate it.

>>85098898
Ok, MIT graduates have a near 100 percent employment rate post graduation in several programs. These are quantitative programs that are not networking based. Do you think all of them get these jobs without the degree?

>>85098922
We've already established top programs are worth going to, see >>85098765.
>If you're going to a 30+ rank school and paying for it you're getting scammed.
I know a bunch of people who go to top programs (Ivy Leagues, Stanford, MIT) and they are degens who spend thousands of hours in FFXIV but get pushed into national research labs and top positions because they are smart.
>These are quantitative programs that are not networking based.
Retard, it's all networking based. Going to MIT is the ultimate form of networking. Now tell me how the guy going to his state flagship is in the same position as a MIT graduate. You can't. Telling people to get a diploma but at the #1 STEM college in the last 200 years isn't a very fair thing to do in a debate, but sure.

>>85098935
If the argument is that getting the diploma itself is a form of networking then you have simply created an argument where its impossible for the other side to win. I went to a T10 school, did no internships, did no networking, and was hired immediately after graduation last year.

>>85098898
A diploma means you are AT MINIMUM this qualified to do [thing]. If you don't have it, you're going to have to start from the bottom every fucking time you change jobs since there is no way for the corp to differentiate between you and the average faggot on the street which is essentially what you are.

This is a concept called "security", an intangible I am not surprised at all an uneducated useless eater fails to grasp. It is another reason why they are so prone to gambling addictions, but that is tangential to this topic.

So you either went to Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, UChicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern or UPenn, all of which are elite institutions that many would automatically consider a form of networking.
Yes, college is networking unless you go to a shitty college. I apparently go to a "Top 30" college and I know for a fact I'm not getting a job and I'm doing the exact same things as you. Let's see if all that diploma-slinging is going to get me anywhere, I guarantee you it will not.

>>85098956
This guy is right. Having a degree is the bare minimum and not having a degree is like having a huge disadvantage no matter how skilled you actually are.

>>85098956
You are severely overestimating the value of a diploma. You didn't see it but I posted here >>85098959, I am perusing one and I've learned nothing of value. That's the reality of the situation and companies are starting to catch on. Security is meaningless, either way they want someone who has networked and obtained internships, and would always take an internal hire or connection over some diploma holder, i.e. the only correct posts are these ones >>85098743, >>85098789, >>85098801, >>85098820.
Posts like these >>85098756, >>85098956 is pure diploma cope. You either did something right or went to those top institutions and got a high paying job. At least admit that and stop trying to shill the power of the diploma, it doesn't matter.

>>85098959
What is your major and school?

>>85098756
Just go to a state school and use the Pell Grant to cover some of your tuition. All you really have to do to qualify is submit your FAFSA on time.

>>85098979
If a diploma is so easy, then where's your's? lmfaoooooooooooooooooooooo

>>85099054
In the process
>>85099033
Engineering, state flagship

>>85098956
Sounds like you got jewed out of 40k for a degree that gets you maybe a part time position somewhere, hows that summer internship going fuckboy? Gonna tell me to work hard and eat my vitamins too?

>>85098728
education doesn't mean anything unless you want to be a doctor, college is for building connections

>>85098801
>College is for networking
it wouldn't be so bad if we were told this from the start. But our boomer parents were convinced get degree=automatically get the job, because that's how it was for them.
I may be a asocial robot, but I can rub elbows when I need to. But no one told me I needed to

>>85099084
And yet the faggots on this board are claiming otherwise, even after facing this reality. Why do robots lie? They must have some form of mental illness/narcissism complex.

>>85099084
if anyone in this thread needs to hear this, nothing matters in this world more than connections. Doesnt matter what they do for you now, make ALL the connections you can, family, friends, distant cousins, say hi to anyone, be nice, you fuckin never know when somebodys coming in clutch

File: 19843596140902.jpg (42 KB, 630x420)

42 KB JPG

hateducation

I hate academia, it attracts midwits like shit attracts flies.

>>85098728
>Yet nearly all successful people at least attended college.
They attended college because they were successful, not the other way around.
The biggest cause of success is to come from an already successful family. Hard work is a rightwing cope.

>>85098793
The God Emperor himself

>>85099225
Yes every single person who is successful went to college because their family is rich. Is this what you tell yourself to cope about not having went to college? lol

>>85100462
It's just the truth lmfao. This post makes no sense. Why are you shilling college so hard? Do you need something to compensate for your irl inadequacies? I don't really have any effective coping methods, perhaps I'll adopt yours one day.

>>85100478
>It's just the truth lmfao
List of successful people who went to University and didn't come from privileged backgrounds:
Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, Sam Walton, Kenneth Langone, David Rubenstein, Leon Cooperman, Ray Dalio, David Abney, Nido Qubein, Thomas Tull, Robert L. Johnson, Reginald F. Lewis, David Steward, John H. Johnson, Masayoshi Son, N. R. Narayana Murthy, Jack Ma, Mohed Altrad, Karsanbhai Patel, Hamdi Ulukaya, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Carl Icahn, Stephen Schwarzman, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall, John Lewis, Tim Scott, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, Deval Patrick, Wes Moore, Keir Starmer, Manmohan Singh, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, B. R. Ambedkar, K. R. Narayanan, Benito Juarez, Alejandro Toledo, Joko Widodo, Mwai Kibaki, Kwame Nkrumah, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Goodluck Jonathan, William Ruto, Lee Myung-bak, Moon Jae-in, Mahathir Mohamad, Desmond Tutu, George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Ralph Bunche, Percy Julian, Charles Drew, Daniel Hale Williams, Ben Carson, David Satcher, Louis W. Sullivan, Ronald McNair, Jose Hernandez, Franklin Chang Diaz, Story Musgrave, Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, Abdus Salam, Ahmed Zewail, Aziz Sancar, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Ernest Everett Just, Edward Bouchet, Geoffrey Canada, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Michael Eric Dyson, Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, James Earl Jones, Danny Glover, Forest Whitaker, Jamie Foxx, Spike Lee, Barry Jenkins, Ryan Coogler, Steve Harvey, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Quincy Jones, John Legend, J. Cole, Common, Ludacris, Stephen King, George R. R. Martin, Frank McCourt, V. S. Naipaul, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes, Seamus Heaney, James Baldwin, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Cornel West, Neil deGrasse Tyson

>>85098728
ITT: Warehouse workers and NEETs COPING

File: 9e252098464f976590b2692a2(...).png (788 KB, 660x680)

788 KB PNG

>>85098793
KEK imagine being born with every advantage and still ruining it for yourself by mindfucking yourself on the blackpill and complaining about 'nobility' while scrolling 4trans between jerk off sessions.
Your post reminds me a lot of the erudite dropout Ignatius J. Riley's body of work - full of wind.

>>85100993
You're replying to a literal schizo.

>>85100529
Gengis Khan didn't go to college yet was infinitely more successful than all of those combined btw

>>85100529
None of these people are successful lmao they are all zog slaves

>>85100462
>Is this what you tell yourself to cope about not having went to college? lol
I had the opportunity to go to college, and still have that opportunity today, I just don't want to

File: 1654169754851.jpg (32 KB, 429x421)

32 KB JPG

>>85101107
You people are insane, covert narcissism is the right diagnose for you midwits.

>>85101146
>being a blackmailed pedophile on Epstein's list is a success
>being a corporate slave is a success
No

>>85101153
Bro you guys are so insane. Literally anyone who has made money or achieved anything is a zog slave to you. You'd probably even say famous scientists are zog slaves for some reason.

>>85101177
>Literally anyone who has made money or achieved anything is a zog slave to you
Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini, Gengis Khan, weren't zogslaves.
>You'd probably even say famous scientists are zog slaves for some reason.
They are. Who do you think funds these fags ?

I'm europoor, have a master's degree in cybersecurity, miraculously still have a job in tech(for how long I wonder), but get paid less than some people working construction in Germany. It didn't cost me much in terms of money, but the time investment and opportunity cost was NOT worth it.

>>85101222
Nearly all of those people lived in a pre-industrial era. Also Mussolinis end isn't great, he wasn't that great of a man, never accomplished anything of note. The other people you mentioned were all born nobles.
>>85101296
You get to work in a comfy office while some guy gets paid more than you but is laying brick without taking a break. Is that really better?

>>85101222
>Napoleon
He went to a military college
>Julius Caesar
Universities didn't exist but he studied under Apollonius Molon, this was the equivalent of higher education back then
>Mussolini
He went to the University of Lausanne and the University of Bologna, he also had a teaching diploma.
>Genghis Khan
What University could he possibly go to in his era and location even if he wanted to?

>>85101567
>>85101551
>Irrelevant schizobabble
College degree and still can't follow a simple discussion. LoL.

>>85101667
You need to go just for English 101 alone

>>85101704
No I don't. You should though.

>>85101667
>Retard he never went to College gets mentally raped
kek you really are a subhuman. Time to get ready for shift at the Amazon warehouse buddy.

>>85101778
I'm doing just fine. No debt, good job that I enjoy and pays well. I lifemog most collegefags. And you aren't mentally raping me. Read the whole conversation again, my messages made sense and followed logically. Feel to ask if you don't understand why.

>>85101822
All you said was that none of those people are successful to a list of successful people who went to college, then when asked for people who you think are successful you proceeded to name two people who lived before the industrial revolution and two people who went to University. IDK what your point is? The initial list of people was made as a retort to someone who said everyone who is successful went to college because they were already from a successful family. What even is your argument?

>>85101846
>All you said was that none of those people are successful to a list of successful people who went to college
Yes.
>then when asked for people who you think are successful you proceeded to name two people who lived before the industrial revolution and two people who went to University
Collegefag is illiterate... brutal. Read again, I'm sure you can find what I was replying to.
>The initial list of people was made as a retort to someone who said everyone who is successful went to college because they were already from a successful family.
That someone was also me, and I stand by that argument. Most successful people, including those who go to college, come from successful background. It's called social determinism, look it up. My only mistake was to forgot to precise there are some exceptions, fair enough.
But even then, 3 problems:
- success is very subjective, and I wouldn't want to be any of the people on that list,
- these people often aren't from a truly broke background, just middle class,
-you can't prove the causation between attending college and being "successful", whatever that means
>What even is your argument?
Well, to answer OP's very first question, which was:
>Why do so many posters on /r9k/ hate education?
There's many reasons to oppose education but I won't bother in this post, I'll just say, most collegefags are broke debtslaves, I'm not, so I have no reason to be pro-college, I'm doing just fine.
Anything else ?

File: earnings.png (76 KB, 1630x518)

76 KB PNG

>>85101961
>you can't prove the causation between attending college and being "successful", whatever that means
For most people that means owning a home, making solid income and having a family. A College degree directly impacts earning according to any study you can find. Picrel is just one example. The median Bachelor's degree worker earns 66% more per week than a highschool graduate. Does that answer your question? Or do I have to explain what a median is?

>>85098728
I'd go but theres no fucking way I'd tolerate the leftist bullshit and unrelated courses they waste your time with. Fuck that.

>>85102009
You can graduate in under 3-6 months if you transfer in online courses. IDK why people never mention this regarding Bachelor's degree in the US.

>>85102001
>A College degree directly impacts earning according to any study you can find.
It does not "directly" impacts earning, learn what this word means.
College might get you to earn more but it's not a certainty, it depends on many other factors, like which degree and field you picked, the job market, etc.
>Picrel is just one example.
Source ? The pic doesn't precise the country, among other things, though I guess it's the USA.
>For most people that means owning a home, making solid income and having a family
Sure but college gets you in debt too, it's dishonest to say "I have a higher salary" while hiding student debt, among other things, like later entry in the workforce or whatever else. Again, many factors.
>The median Bachelor's degree worker earns 66% more per week than a highschool graduate.
Not everyone who didn't go to college is only a highschool graduate. There are other forms of education.
>Does that answer your question?
It answers it but it does not prove going to college is the superior option, only that it's an option, among others.
Again, as I said here: >>85101133
I have no regret avoiding college, don't act like I'm bitter because I failed to get there, that's not what happened. I'm satisfied with my choices.
>Or do I have to explain what a median is?
No need for that, I know what this means. Unlike what you wish, not having a college degree doesn't make someone stupid.
Anything else ? And please stay on track

>>85102001
>For most people that means owning a home, making solid income and having a family.
But OP said nearly everyone who achieves that has been to college, that's obviously not the case.
Perhaps you disagree with OP then, when he said:
>Yet nearly all successful people at least attended college.

Fell for the "education is a scam" grift. Yes, college education is expensive. But it's not for everyone. Trade schools and community colleges exist though, which are for neety boys to gain experience. But people here would rather pay for a scam course than invest in learning skills.

>>85098728
all nepobabies attend college, yes, then succeed through nepotism

>>85102229
>Fell for the "education is a scam" grift
Is it not ? At least in the US, where you pay ?
If I started a business of selling cheap pieces of paper that said "you're smart!" for 300.000$, and told my clients it would secure the a good job, you'd call it a scam too, yet that's more or less what college is.

>>85102137
> It's not certain
No shit. Causation does not mean a guaranteed outcome for every individual. Smoking causes cancer, but not every smoker gets cancer. College raises **expected earnings**; it does not guarantee success.
> Other factors matter
Nobody denied that. Major, debt, school quality and the job market all affect the return. That changes the size of the benefit, not the fact that the average benefit exists.
> Source?
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bachelor's holders earn roughly 60-65% more per week than people with only a high-school diploma and also have lower unemployment.
> College causes debt and delays work
Those costs are already included in studies estimating the financial return of college. Even after tuition and lost working years, the median graduate still comes out ahead. Also, almost half of graduates leave with no student debt.
> There are other forms of education
Correct. Trades and apprenticeships can be excellent options. That does not disprove the college earnings premium.
> I'm happy without college
Good for you. Your personal experience does not overturn population-level data.
You keep attacking "college guarantees success," but nobody said that. The actual claim is that college improves average economic outcomes. You haven't refuted it; you've just listed exceptions everyone already knows about.

>>85102019
That's actually good to know thanks. I'll check it out.

>>85102318
>wall of text until:
>Good for you. Your personal experience does not overturn population-level data.
Agreed.
>You keep attacking "college guarantees success," but nobody said that.
It kinda was OP's point though, see:
>They always talk about it being overpriced or for goy cattle. Yet nearly all successful people at least attended college.
He claimed if you want to be successful you have to go to college, which he can't prove.
>The actual claim is that college improves average economic outcomes.
It doesn't. It can but it's not certainty.
And yes, I know what average means, but it doesn't matter in this debate. It is stupid to simply look at an average to make a decision. If one wants to know whether to go to college or not he should look more specifically at his personal situation and desires.
For illustration, this is like telling a guy who wants to be a mason: "engineering have higher salaries on average". It might be true, but it's irrelevant, since he wants to be a mason, not an engineering, going to college would be a bad idea for him.
Do you understand ?

>>85102398
>He claimed you have to go to college to be successful
No, he said nearly all successful people attended college. That's a claim about prevalence, not logical necessity. You changed "usually associated with success" into "success is impossible without it" because the weaker claim is easier to attack.
>College doesn't improve average outcomes. It can, but it's not certain.
Read that sentence again. "Improves average outcomes" literally does not mean "guarantees the outcome." You keep saying you understand averages and then immediately proving you don't.
>Personal circumstances matter
Obviously. Population data tell you the general odds; personal circumstances tell you how those odds apply to you. Both matter. Nobody chooses a career using one statistic alone, but that doesn't make the statistic irrelevant.
>Your mason example
If someone specifically wants to be a mason, college may be pointless for him. Great. That proves college isn't optimal for every individual, which nobody argued.
You've now retreated from "college doesn't improve economic outcomes" to "college isn't right for literally everyone." Congratulations on defeating a claim nobody made.
Do you understand?

>>85098728
Theyre failures. I have three degrees and talent out my ass. Most of you tards cannot even read.

>>85098778
I got Pell grants. The government paid for my education because I worked at a cemetery and made poverty wages for 2 years

>>85102420
>No, he said nearly all successful people attended college. That's a claim about prevalence, not logical necessity. You changed "usually associated with success" into "success is impossible without it" because the weaker claim is easier to attack.
I didn't. It's just easier to write it this way, you're being dishonest.
>Read that sentence again. "Improves average outcomes" literally does not mean "guarantees the outcome." You keep saying you understand averages and then immediately proving you don't.
I do understand, I said it's irrelevant, and it is.
>Obviously. Population data tell you the general odds; personal circumstances tell you how those odds apply to you. Both matter. Nobody chooses a career using one statistic alone, but that doesn't make the statistic irrelevant.
No, that's not how it works. The general data is completely irrelevant if you have more precise data which applies to your situation.
>You've now retreated from "college doesn't improve economic outcomes" to "college isn't right for literally everyone." Congratulations on defeating a claim nobody made.
I didn't. Let me repeat it: "college doesn't improve economic outcome". It can but isn't necessary, unlike what OP (almost) claimed. Going to college does not cause economic success.
But fair he didn't say ALL successful people went to college, he only said NEARLY, because it makes it harder to attack.
Now let's go back to your previous claim:
>>85102001
>For most people that means owning a home, making solid income and having a family.
According to OP, NEARLY all successful people went to college. This must mean, given what you wrote, that NEARLY everyone who owns a house has a good income and a family, went to college, right ?
I would like to see you defend this claim.

>>85102604
> General data are irrelevant if you have more precise data
Then why were you arguing from your own personal experience earlier?
You already agreed that:
> My personal experience does not overturn population-level data.
Now you're saying population-level data are "completely irrelevant." Pick one.
> College doesn't improve economic outcomes. It can, but isn't necessary.
That sentence contradicts itself.
If college can improve economic outcomes, then "college doesn't improve economic outcomes" is false. What you actually mean is:
> College is not necessary for economic success.
Nobody disagrees with that.
And you've now admitted OP said "nearly all," not "all." So your entire argument has been attacking a stronger claim than he made, then pretending you disproved the original one.
As for homeowners: no, "nearly all homeowners went to college" does not follow. "Successful" was never defined as satisfying every single condition at once, and you know that. You're deliberately replacing a vague claim with the dumbest possible literal interpretation because you can't refute the actual point:
College is not required for success, but it improves the odds of higher income and lower unemployment.
You agreed anecdotes don't beat population data, then called population data irrelevant. You said college can improve outcomes, then said it doesn't improve outcomes.

>>85102638
>Then why were you arguing from your own personal experience earlier?
>You already agreed that:
>> My personal experience does not overturn population-level data.
>Now you're saying population-level data are "completely irrelevant." Pick one.
No. I don't have to pick one. What I said makes sense. Read it again if need be, I know you are slow but you can do it.
>That sentence contradicts itself.
No it doesn't.
>So your entire argument has been attacking a stronger claim than he made, then pretending you disproved the original one.
No, that's not what I did.
>As for homeowners: no, "nearly all homeowners went to college" does not follow. "Successful" was never defined as satisfying every single condition at once, and you know that. You're deliberately replacing a vague claim with the dumbest possible literal interpretation because you can't refute the actual point:
Holy dishonesty! Backtracking on your claims ?
>College is not required for success, but it improves the odds of higher income and lower unemployment.
That clearly isn't what OP claimed.
I quote:
>nearly all successful people at least attended college.
Going down from "nearly necessary" to "improves the odds for some people"

>>85098743
>diploma and connections.
You can network and get credentials for cheaper elsewhere too.

>>85102719
> Going down from "nearly necessary" to "improves the odds for some people"
There you go rewriting it again. "Nearly all successful people attended college" is a claim about how common college is **among successful people**. It does not mean college is "nearly necessary," nor that attending guarantees success.
To refute OP, you'd need to define "successful" and provide data showing that most successful people didn't attend college. Repeating "some people succeed without it" proves nothing because "nearly all" already allows exceptions.
You also said population data are irrelevant when individual data exist. Now you're demanding population data about homeowners. So aggregate evidence is irrelevant when it supports college, but suddenly essential when you think it helps you?
> College doesn't improve economic outcomes. It can improve them.
is still nonsense. What you mean is that it doesn't improve outcomes for everyone. Nobody claimed it did retard.
OP's wording was broad, but your argument is worse: you keep replacing "college is common among successful people" with "college is mandatory for success," then congratulate yourself for disproving something nobody said.

>>85102733
>To refute OP, you'd need
Or better yet, he should prove his claim first, don't you think this would be better ?
How do you expect me to attack precisely such a vague claim ?

>>85102761
> How do you expect me to attack precisely such a vague claim?
Maybe start by writing a coherent paragraph.
Your posts read like you're arguing with three different people at once: you deny something, repeat it in slightly different words, then declare victory over a claim nobody made.
Yes, OP should prove his vague claim. That still doesn't make your own contradictory rambling correct. "College doesn't improve outcomes, but it can improve outcomes" isn't an argument;.
Define your position, stick to it for more than one line, then complain about other people being vague.

>>85102782
>Your posts read like you're arguing with three different people at once: you deny something, repeat it in slightly different words, then declare victory over a claim nobody made.
>Yes, OP should prove his vague claim. That still doesn't make your own contradictory rambling correct. "College doesn't improve outcomes, but it can improve outcomes" isn't an argument;.
Stop projecting, only you did that.
>Define your position, stick to it for more than one line, then complain about other people being vague.
Sure then: College as no effect on success. College is for fags and I'm glad I didn't go. OP is wrong and a faggot, as usual, and so are you.
Argue with that instead of putting words in my mouth.

>>85102824
> College has no effect on success. College is for [slur] and I'm glad I didn't go.
And there it is: the exact moment the argument died.
You started with "averages are irrelevant," got caught contradicting yourself, failed to answer the data, and finally abandoned reasoning altogether for "college bad because I said so."
Your final argument is literally:
> I have no evidence
> I'm personally offended
> Here are some slurs
Hahahahaha

>>85102889
So you won't argue ? Lole

>>85102901
I already argued. You answered the data with "college is for fags and I'm glad I didn't go."

That's not an argument, that's you flipping the table and then asking why nobody's still playing chess.

"Lole" indeed.

>>85102923
>>85102923
>You answered the data with "college is for fags and I'm glad I didn't go."
Lying again...
You asked me to define my position more clearly, which I did by saying : "college has no effect on success". You ignore that and went back on jerking off over your irrelevant faggotry.
>That's not an argument
There was no arguments to reply to in the first place

"Lole"

>>85098793
Are you in your 50s or something?
How much time did it take to do all that?

>>85102952
>College has no effect on success.
In 2025, bachelor's graduates earned a median $1,578 a week, versus $966 for high-school-only workers: about 63% more. In 2024, their unemployment rate was 2.5% versus 4.2%.
College-headed households had a median income of $132,700, compared with $58,410 for high-school-only households.
And before you scream "correlation," a study comparing nearly identical students barely above and below admission cutoffs found that college admission increased degree completion and eventually raised earnings 5-10%, enough to offset the costs.
You can argue OP hasn't proven "nearly all successful people attended college." Fine.
But you replaced his vague claim with your own precise claim-"college has no effect"-and your claim is objectively false.
You asked for an argument, received earnings, unemployment, household-income and causal evidence, then responded with "lying" and slurs.

>>85098728
>graduate university with a STEM degree
>become unemployable with lifetime debt + tip
>pretend to have no education past school on application just to get warehouse work
>do a trades apprenticeship and make triple the money graduate schemes pay without overtime
Experience in education has made me hate education

>>85103087
>graduate schemes
So you're in the UK?

>>85103110
>in the UK
The cloudy sky outside and overarching atmosphere of despair and ennui says yes

>>85103059
>In 2025, bachelor's graduates earned a median $1,578 a week, versus $966 for high-school-only workers: about 63% more. In 2024, their unemployment rate was 2.5% versus 4.2%.
As said earlier, this leaves other important factors like late entry in the workforce, debt, the costs of life during college, where do people work depending on the field, era of the data, etc
>College-headed households had a median income of $132,700, compared with $58,410 for high-school-only households.
Again, these 2 aren't the only possibilities, there are other forms of education.
>a study comparing nearly identical students barely above and below admission cutoffs found that college admission increased degree completion and eventually raised earnings 5-10%, enough to offset the costs.
Enough to offset the costs... after how much time ? Link to that study ?
And finally, for that data to matter you'd have to define success as salary, which many people don't.
>You can argue OP hasn't proven "nearly all successful people attended college." Fine.
I can and do.
>But you replaced his vague claim with your own precise claim-"college has no effect"-and your claim is objectively false.
God damn you can't help yourself but distord my words... I said it has no effect ON SUCCESS.
>responded with "lying" and slurs.
You were the first to do that thoughever:
>>85101778

>>85098728
>"Overpriced"
Sounds like a USAsian problem.

>>85103185
> That ignores debt, lost work years and costs
The causal study tracked that. Students earned less while studying, broke even later, then earned **5-10% more from about year 8 onward**, enough to offset the costs.
> Other education exists
Yes. The study compared college with students' actual alternatives, including community college and other schools.
> College has no effect ON SUCCESS
Then define success. You demanded OP define it, then used the same vague word yourself.
If success includes income and employment, the data refute you. If it means something else, prove that claim.
You asked for evidence, got it, then hid inside "success is subjective." That's not a rebuttal.

>>85103224
>Then define success. You demanded OP define it, then used the same vague word yourself.
>If success includes income and employment, the data refute you. If it means something else, prove that claim.
>You asked for evidence, got it, then hid inside "success is subjective." That's not a rebuttal.
Success is subjective though. What else do you want me to add ? Some people view reproduction as the ultimately success, if that's the case it's easy to see how college education is negatively correlated to that. Africans who pop out 8 kids by women aren't usually college educated.

>>85098728
The economics of education is one thing and basically yes it is a total scam to pay full price just to go to school and get a degree that will never be worth what you paid for it.
I do think things have gotten better in that regard and it's easier to get financial aid if you are low income. I'm literally about to go to school on a full ride myself. All I did was apply and because I indeed have low income they just gave me the money that simple. Even prestigious schools these days will pay most of it if you have low income.

The bigger issue with schools is just the nature of it as an institution. Whether you want to view schools as a social institution or a business there are big problems either way. Whether you're talking about public or private schools same thing. Across the board social institutions and businesses have been ravaged just by the current state of the world and globalist capitalism. Everything has gotten worse and school is no exception.

>>85103224
>The causal study tracked that. Students earned less while studying, broke even later, then earned **5-10% more from about year 8 onward**, enough to offset the costs.
Link to that study ?

>>85103256
> Success is subjective.
Partly. The weight people give each factor is subjective, but studies repeatedly find the same factors: family and relationships, health, meaningful work, financial security, education and personal development.
And this destroys your own claim. If "success" is completely subjective, then "college has no effect on success" is meaningless and impossible to prove. To study it, you need measurable indicators.
On common indicators like income and employment, college has an effect. On family life or happiness, the answer may differ. You don't get to call success undefinable when evidence appears, then make universal claims about it yourself.
Also, "having eight children" is not society's standard definition of success. You personally selected raw reproduction because it gives you the result you wanted. That's the exact arbitrary subjectivity you're accusing everyone else of.

>>85103286
It's by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32296/w32296.pdf

>>85103290
>Partly
Fully.
>but studies repeatedly find the same factors: family and relationships, health, meaningful work, financial security, education and personal development.
Repeating paterns doesn't make it objective all that is still subject.
>And this destroys your own claim. If "success" is completely subjective, then "college has no effect on success" is meaningless and impossible to prove. To study it, you need measurable indicators.
Being subjective doesn't mean it's immeasurable. It practice all it does is that everyone will measure his own relevant factors.
As for my claim college doesn't affect success, I stand by it, though I agree it's hard to argue for or against if college is subjective, but it made in sense as a response to OP vague claim.
>On common indicators like income and employment, college has an effect. On family life or happiness, the answer may differ. You don't get to call success undefinable when evidence appears, then make universal claims about it yourself.
You don't get to do that either, yet you just did here:
>Also, "having eight children" is not society's standard definition of success.

>On family life or happiness, the answer may differ.
You really just can't admit openly that you are wrong, can you ? Only a vague "can differ" because answering honestly would go against your argument.
>You personally selected raw reproduction because it gives you the result you wanted. That's the exact arbitrary subjectivity you're accusing everyone else of.
I specifically avoid doing that by precising:
>>85103256
>SOME PEOPLE view reproduction as the ultimately success
But you can't help yourself to change my words to make it easier to attack, then say I'm the one doing that.

>>85103306
Thanks. Will read later.

>>85103381
You've argued yourself into a crater.
> Success is fully subjective.
Then "college has no effect on success" cannot be universally true, because different people define success differently.
> Some people define success as reproduction.
And you claim college affects reproduction negatively. So by your own example, college **does affect success** under that definition.
You literally disproved your own claim while explaining it.
The correct position is: college can help, hurt or do nothing depending on the person's goals.
Instead, you keep insisting it has "no effect" while listing effects it supposedly has.
This is not a difficult logical distinction. You're just losing an argument against your own sentences.

>>85103416
>The correct position is: college can help, hurt or do nothing depending on the person's goals.
You can chose to go or not to college depending on your goals though, so the existence of college doesn't affect your ability to be successful, just pick what is best for you.

But sure, I have worded it badly, it would have been better to say:
>college can help, hurt or do nothing depending on the person's goals.

Now read the OP again, that's clearly not what he claimed, so I ask you is OP right or wrong ?
That's the topic of the thread.

>>85103486
> You can choose whether college suits your goals, so college doesn't affect your ability to succeed.
That makes no sense. Being able to choose something doesn't mean it has no effect. You can choose whether to exercise; exercise still affects your health.
And you've finally conceded the actual point:
> College can help, hurt or do nothing depending on your goals.
So college **can affect success**. Twenty posts later, you've arrived at the position you were arguing against.
Is OP literally correct that "nearly all" successful people attended college? He phrased it too broadly and should support it.
Is his basic point correct? Yes. Under ordinary measures like income, employment and professional opportunity, college graduates do substantially better on average.

>>85103514
>Being able to choose something doesn't mean it has no effect. You can choose whether to exercise; exercise still affects your health.
Your comparison doesn't stand because exercising being good for health is objective (thoughI guess you could argue otherwise but I'm not gonna go there unless you think it's relevant) while college being good for success isn't subjective.
A better comparison would have been to say that exercising makes one successful, and again, not necessarly because success is subjective.
More simply, if you are able to chose between 2 options, and these 2 options can makes different people successful, then the existence of 1 of these option isn't "objectively" good for succes.
>Is his basic point correct? Yes
No
>Under ordinary measures like income, employment and professional opportunity, college graduates do substantially better on average.
You cherrypick the "ordinary measures" that fits your point, just as you said I did here:
>You personally selected raw reproduction because it gives you the result you wanted. That's the exact arbitrary subjectivity you're accusing everyone else of.

>>85103680
>while college being good for success isn't subjective.
*is
Spelling mistake

>>85103680
>You cherry-pick "ordinary measures."
No. Income, employment, health, family stability and life satisfaction are called ordinary measures because surveys repeatedly show people commonly value them. "Subjective" does not mean every definition is equally common or that population-level patterns become meaningless.
Your mistake is demanding that college be objectively good under every possible definition of success before admitting it has any general benefit. That standard is absurd. Nothing, not exercise, marriage, money or education is beneficial under every person's private definition.
OP's "nearly all successful people" wording is too broad. But his basic point survives: by several of the outcomes most people associate with success, graduates outperform non-graduates on average.
Your counterargument is merely:
> Some people want different things.
Brilliant discovery. That qualifies OP's claim; it doesn't reverse it.
And reproduction wasn't rejected because it was subjective. It was rejected because you selected one narrow outcome, while OP was plainly discussing conventional social and economic success.
You're not exposing cherry-picking. You're pretending one exception cancels a general trend because averages have been bullying you for ten posts.

>>85103712
It seems we can't understand each other.
I give up. Feel free to claim victory or whatever