Is college worth it anymore?

Daily Debate #565: "Is college worth it anymore?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Despite rising tuition costs and the growth of alternative education, college still remains one of the most reliable investments one can make. For starters, on average, college graduates earn significantly more over their lifetimes than those with only a high school diploma. While exceptions do exist, public policy and labor market data show consistently that higher education is associated with lower unemployment and greater financial stability. Beyond income, colleges create and give opportunities to students that are hard to replicate anywhere else, such as internships, tutors, mentors, professors, research opportunities, and alumni networks. Many professions that give those opportunities, such as medicine, law, teaching, and many scientific fields, either require or strongly favor a college degree. Finally, discussions about whether college is "worth it" often focus only on the most expensive private universities. Many students attend community colleges or public universities, receive scholarships, live at home, or complete two years before transferring, dramatically reducing costs while still earning valuable degrees. The question isn't whether every college degree is worth the price. The question is whether college, when chosen wisely with regard to cost and career goals, remains worthwhile. The evidence suggests that, for many people, it does.

You're conflating correlation with causation and hiding behind aggregate statistics. That lifetime earnings premium shrinks dramatically when you control for selection bias—high-achievers go to college *and* earn more, but college didn't create that outcome. Your "wisely chosen" caveat is a silent admission: the degree itself isn't the guarantee, your careful decision-making is. If that's true, why pay for the credential instead of just making smart choices elsewhere? And you've dodged the real problem: half of college graduates are underemployed in jobs that don't require degrees. Why defend an institution that only works if you already know how to game the system?

You're raising several important critiques, but I don't think they overturn the case for college. First, on correlation versus causation: you're right that selection bias exists. People who attend college differ from those who don't. But economists have spent decades trying to account for that using methods like twin studies, natural experiments, regression analyses, and instrumental variables. While estimates vary, they generally still find a positive causal effect of obtaining a degree on average earnings. The premium may be smaller than a simple comparison suggests, but it doesn't disappear. Second, my "wisely chosen" caveat isn't an admission that college itself lacks value. It's recognizing that investments differ in quality. We don't conclude that stocks are worthless because buying bad companies loses money, or that starting a business is pointless because many businesses fail. The existence of poor educational investments doesn't negate the value of good ones. As for underemployment, that statistic deserves context. Being underemployed immediately after graduation isn't necessarily permanent, and many graduates move into degree-level positions over time. Moreover, "jobs that don't require degrees" often still prefer applicants who have one because it signals persistence, communication skills, and general competence. That signaling effect is itself part of the economic value of a degree. You also ask, "Why not just make smart choices elsewhere?" For some people, that's exactly the better path. But many careers simply aren't open without formal credentials. You can't replace medical school with self-study and become a physician, nor can you become a licensed engineer, teacher, or many types of scientist without recognized qualifications. In those cases, the credential isn't arbitrary—it's part of how society verifies competence. Finally, you suggest college only works if you know how to "game the system." I think that's too strong. Students who choose affordable schools, relevant majors, and take advantage of internships aren't gaming the system—they're using the opportunities the system is designed to provide. Making informed decisions is part of almost every major life investment, whether it's buying a house, starting a business, or pursuing higher education. So I'd turn your argument around: if the problem is that people make poor educational choices, isn't the solution better guidance and more transparent information, rather than concluding that college as an institution is no longer worth it?

You're smuggling in the real answer while denying it: college works *if* you already possess the judgment, resources, and networks to navigate it successfully. Economists haven't solved selection bias—they've just reduced uncertainty around it. But here's your trap: you're defending college by describing what makes college *unnecessary*. If success requires informed decision-making, affordable schools, strategic major selection, and internship hustle, those skills create value independent of the degree. Why not teach decision-making and hustle directly instead of funneling millions through credential gatekeeping?

That's a strong challenge, but I think it conflates two different questions: What makes someone successful? What institutions help people become successful? I agree that judgment, planning, and initiative matter enormously. But it doesn't follow that college is therefore unnecessary. Take medicine as an analogy. Discipline and healthy habits are essential for becoming an elite athlete, but that doesn't make coaching unnecessary. Coaching and personal effort are complements, not substitutes. Likewise, college isn't valuable because it replaces judgment; it's valuable because it provides a structured environment where judgment can be applied to opportunities that would otherwise be inaccessible. Your proposal—teach decision-making and hustle directly—is appealing, and I'd support doing more of it in high school. But even if every student graduated with exceptional financial literacy, career planning, and work ethic, we'd still need institutions to teach chemistry labs, engineering design, clinical practice, legal reasoning, and advanced mathematics. The credential isn't merely gatekeeping in many fields; it's evidence that someone has completed standardized training that society relies on. On gatekeeping, there's an important distinction between artificial and functional barriers. If a company requires a bachelor's degree for a job that genuinely doesn't need one, that's arguably inefficient credential inflation. But if a civil engineer is designing a bridge or a pharmacist is dispensing medication, society has a legitimate interest in verifying competence through rigorous education and assessment. Finally, I'd challenge your implication that the value-creating skills exist independently of college in practice. Where do many students first build professional networks, encounter mentors, gain research experience, or secure internships? For a large number of people—especially first-generation college students—college is precisely the place where those opportunities become available. If we removed college tomorrow, we'd also remove one of the largest infrastructures for connecting people to those experiences. So I agree with part of your critique: we should reduce unnecessary credentialism and teach practical decision-making earlier. But that argues for reforming how we prepare people and how employers hire—not for concluding that college itself has lost its value.

Your coaching analogy fails: coaches don't charge $100k and take four years to teach one sport. The real question isn't whether structured learning matters—it does—but whether college's *current model* is the efficient vehicle. Clinical practice, chemistry labs, engineering design can all exist in apprenticeship systems, bootcamps, and employer training. You're defending the institution by assuming alternatives don't exist, when they're already emerging and working. If college's value depends on removing it being catastrophic, you've just proved the system is too entrenched, not too valuable.