Is college worth it anymore?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is college worth it anymore?". Your opponent's style: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

In this modern era, many influencers appear to be undergraduate but managed to be successful entrepreneurs in their own field respectively. They spread the message that college is not a mandatory for success. Some even say college is not worth it. However, we as the government team strongly believe that college is still worth it in this era. College is a place for higher education beyond secondary school, you have more homework and projects there. The government is going to frame this debate by telling you that college is still worth it in aspects such as job hunting and personal growth. First argument, college is still worth it because its diploma/degree/master certificate is still valuable in job hunting. Situation A, schools, shops, powerhouse companies or any other professional job still take account of a college certificate. This is because after you complete your semesters and get the certificate, it is a prove that you have engaged in higher studies. It proves that you have a certain level of intellectuality, problem solving quality or any other skills because you passed exams and finished the course. It is most immediate and certain answer for the company to see what are your abilities. Situation B, in all types of field and subjects, college often give students assignment and projects to research and study certain things in the modern era. This helps students to understand how to modern society works and know every recent trends or news. Professor will also guide you through this. When you have this knowledge, you can start an entrepreneurship based on the needs of the modern society, this is something that undergraduates do not know because they do not have that deep understanding of certain complexity of society like college graduates do with the guide of professors.

Look, you're describing a piece of paper and homework assignments like they're magic. They're not. Those influencers are proof college isn't mandatory for success, and you're trying to argue around that instead of against it. A degree proves you sat through classes, not that you can actually solve problems. Real entrepreneurs research society themselves, learn from failures, not lectures. Your argument assumes companies hire based on certificates when they increasingly hire based on portfolios and skills. And professors guiding you through "modern trends"? Influencers get real-time market feedback from millions of followers while you're still writing papers your professor grades weeks late. You're defending institutions, not outcomes.

First rebut, in college classes, there's not only lessons, but also assignments and projects that requires you to do practical research or practice by yourselves, and the lecturer will mark and give comments afterwards. This certainly let students develop problem solving skills and learn from failures. Secondly, companies do take account on portfolios and skills, but if one has a portfolio and not a college degree, it is certain that his job experience will likely be jobs that don't required a specific profession such as being a waiter. If a candidate with these non-professional job experience or a interviewee with a college degree wants to interview for a professional job. Certainly, a company would choose the one who has college degree because it proves that he is smart and capable in the field at a certain level. Third rebut, the factor that make influencers popular or successful is 100% luck. You might argue that if someone puts enough hard work and make a really good video or project, people will appreciate that and actually take account of their talent or hard work. However how people think isn't the important, because it is the algorithm that decide if your hard work is seen or not or seen by the right audience. So if the influencer's success is based on luck, they have no rights to advice people to not go to college just because they didn't and succeed with the help of luck.

You're cherry-picking. Yes, assignments teach problem-solving, but so does failing a real business. Your "waiter with no degree" strawman ignores that plenty of non-college paths build portfolios that matter: apprenticeships, certifications, bootcamps. You're saying companies choose degrees because they "prove smartness" but admit they also want portfolios and skills. Pick one. If portfolios matter, the degree becomes decoration. And your luck argument backfires badly. You're saying influencer success is pure algorithm chance, yet somehow a college degree guarantees job success? That's also luck-dependent—the economy crashes, your field becomes obsolete, automation kills the job. At least influencers proved adaptability in real markets, not theoretical classrooms. Why is one luck acceptable and not the other?

Failing a real business do teach problem solving, but not every can afford the financial loss and mental burden of it. My argument clearly outweighs yours since your alternative solution has side effects that 99% of people is not privellged or rich enough and mentally strong enough to take the fail, whereas if you fail an exam or assignment in college, you won't lose much but actually gain more experience before you actually start working. Second, I mentioned that degree still matters more than portfolios for profeessional jobs. And if you tell everyone that degree is not worth it, society will lack people from professional skills such as lawyer, doctors, engineers and other professionalism. We should always encourage people to aim for the higher and get professional jobs to ensure we have enough people in professional fields so that society can keep working. Third, a certain field won't just simply break apart because of the economy. You failed to prove it is luck dependent

You just proved my point. You're arguing college is worth it because it's *safe*, not because it works better. That's not a defense of education, that's a defense of risk avoidance. And your "99% can't afford to fail" argument? College costs $100k-300k [1]. Most people can't afford that either. You're choosing debt over failure, both hurt. Your lawyer-doctor argument is dishonest. Those fields *require* credentials, sure. But you're saying *everyone* needs college for professional jobs when most jobs don't. Stop conflating necessary requirements with universal necessity. Finally, fields absolutely collapse when economies shift. Coal mining, taxi driving, bank tellers. Degrees don't protect you from obsolescence. At least self-taught people adapt faster because they're forced to.

First, if you fail a business, you loss that perhaps also $300k or more just for to learn from failure. In college, u pay for lessons and also practical learning. Moreover, there are scholarships or other donations for certain students to make sure they can afford and obtain higher education. When undergraduates fail a business, they do have a bigger impact and learn better but not everyone is rational enough to take the loss. People does not also take financial loss but they cannot take the mental burden of the business failure. And the financial loss will exacerbate their mental burden, making them harder to get over the loss. So, a failure with smaller loss in college is better for people to learn. Second, most jobs don't need a degree but professional jobs matters more to society than other non-professional jobs. These professional people such as doctors, scientist, lawyers are the backbones of society. So a college degree is important for hunting professional jobs which is really vital to society. Finally, degree do protect you from these crisis. When a influencer face backlash and become less famous and are forgotten by people, they have no value anymore, and they are most likely to work in simple jobs. But for example, if you have IT degree, perhaps you lose a job as a IT program designer, but you can still work as a professor or a teacher. So even if both jobs are luck-dependent, in the worst situation, undergraduates face a bigger loss than degree holders because they have a concrete prove of their ability, which is what all companies will be valuing in time of crisis.

You're moving goalposts. You said college teaches problem-solving through safe failure, now you're admitting the real learning comes from actual loss. That's the contradiction. Scholarships exist, sure, but they don't cover everyone and they're competitive—not a solution, a bandaid. Your "professional jobs matter more" is circular logic. You need doctors, but not every graduate becomes one. Most become middle managers and accountants. And your finale kills your own argument: you're saying a degree protects people by letting them pivot to teaching when their field dies. But that means the degree itself doesn't guarantee anything—it's just backup optionality. Self-taught people pivot too. You're not defending college's value anymore, just its safety net. That's not worth the debt.

Real learning comes from actual loss, but not everyone can afford the loss. As the loss is bigger in both financial and mental form in business failures compare with college exams or project failures. So, I have proven that my side effect is smaller. Second, yes not every graduate becomes a professional. But if you sell the idealogy that college is not a worth it, professionals will be lesser and eventually be gone. That is a bigger problem than some other individuals not becoming a professional.

You're sacrificing individuals for the collective. That's the real argument now, and it's revealing. You're saying millions should pay $100k-300k for degrees they might not need just so society has "enough doctors" [1]. But forcing people into debt to subsidize professional pipelines isn't education, it's coercion. Countries with free college still don't guarantee enough doctors—they use selection and aptitude testing, not blanket enrollment. And your "selling ideology" argument assumes people are sheep. They're not. Markets self-correct. If doctors disappear, salaries spike, people respond. Stop treating individuals as sacrifices for systemic stability. That's not noble governance, that's exploitation with better marketing.