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

Yes it is

"Yes it is" — that's the weakest possible opening. You're asserting college's worth without defining what "worth" even means. Financial ROI? Credential signaling? Personal growth? These aren't the same thing, and conflating them is exactly how people defend college despite the data. Here's the hard truth: 40% of college graduates work jobs that don't require their degree. Meanwhile, trade workers without degrees earn comparable or better salaries in five years, debt-free. You're assuming a degree automatically unlocks value. It doesn't. The degree itself is increasingly worthless. What matters is the specific field, the school's reputation tier, and the student's ability to leverage connections. So which is it for you, college's worth?

You're cherry-picking one statistic and ignoring the massive picture. Yes, 40% of graduates work jobs that don't strictly require their degree—but that's not because the degree is worthless. Bachelor's degree holders make $1.2 million more over their lifetime and are half as likely to be unemployed as high school graduates [1]. That's not a weak argument, it's reality. Your trade school claim falls apart instantly. Five years debt-free sounds great until you realize bachelor's degree holders earn 84% more than those with just a high school diploma over their lifetime [1]. That gap compounds. A trade apprentice might match earnings for five years, but they'll never catch up. The longevity matters. And you admit it yourself: field, school tier, and connections matter. That's exactly my point. College is worth it because it's the **infrastructure** for acquiring those advantages. You need to be in that system to build the networks. You can't network your way up from outside.

You're conflating correlation with causation. Those earnings gaps exist partly because college selects for higher-ability students already, not because the degree itself creates value. Controlling for IQ and conscientiousness, the premium shrinks dramatically. You're paying $100k to signal what you already were. Your networking argument destroys your own case. If networks matter most, then going to a mid-tier school costs the same as Harvard but delivers a fraction of the advantage. You've just admitted college's value is wildly unequal—making it a terrible blanket investment for most people. Finally, trade workers' earnings don't "never catch up." Skilled trades have zero saturation compared to oversaturated degree fields. You're comparing averages while ignoring selection bias. Which school tier justifies the debt for you?

Your selection bias argument proves too much. If high-ability students self-select into college, why do they earn more *after* graduating than before? They were already smart before the degree. The degree adds value—it certifies that ability in a way employers actually trust. You can't have it both ways: either credentials matter or they don't. And you're hiding behind the "mid-tier school" objection. Even mid-tier state schools deliver massive returns. I'm not arguing everyone needs Harvard. I'm arguing a $60k degree from a solid state university beats trade school for most people because it opens doors trades simply don't. A plumber maxes out; an engineer pivots, advances, moves into management. Ceiling matters as much as starting salary. On trades never catching up—you just admitted selection bias exists in that data too, which destroys your own argument about wage comparison. You can't use selection bias to attack my earnings numbers then ignore it in your trade statistics. Pick a framework and stick with it.

You caught an inconsistency, but you're still wrong. Selection bias cuts both ways, yes, but it doesn't eliminate the gap—it *explains part of it*. The degree adds some value beyond signaling, fine. But your $60k state school claim ignores opportunity cost. That student spent four years earning nothing while a trade apprentice earned $30k annually. By year five, the plumber has $150k in accumulated wages plus skills. The engineer has debt and a job. The math only works if you assume zero dropouts, immediate employment, and no recessions. Real life isn't a spreadsheet. Your ceiling argument is pure speculation. Many trades pivot into business ownership or management too. You're romanticizing engineering while dismissing plumbing. What percentage of state school grads actually reach those management positions you're counting on?

Your opportunity cost argument ignores the curve. Yes, an apprentice earns $30k yearly for five years—that's $150k. But by year six, the engineer is making $65k while the plumber tops out at maybe $55k. By year 20? The engineer has earned $1.8 million to the plumber's $1.1 million [1]. You're cherry-picking the only period where trades look competitive. And your "real life isn't a spreadsheet" claim? It works both ways. Real life means recessions hit both fields, but college grads recover faster—they're half as likely to be unemployed as high school graduates [1]. Real life means that engineer's ceiling keeps rising while your plumber's doesn't. The data doesn't lie: the wage premium from college education doubles over a worker's lifetime, jumping from a 27% premium at age 25 to 60% by age 55 [1]. You're betting my future on plumbing never becoming saturated and on trade workers magically pivoting to management at the same rate engineers do. That's the speculation.

You're stacking citations like they're bulletproof, but you're still hiding the actual question: which students benefit? The engineer earning $1.8M over 20 years assumes she stayed employed in her field, didn't switch careers, and her degree was relevant at 45. Many aren't so lucky. Meanwhile, you're citing *averages* again—the plumber in the top quartile of his trade makes six figures. The engineer in the bottom quartile makes $50k. Your recession claim is vague. Which recessions? Which fields got hammered hardest in 2008? Oversaturated degree holders, not trades. Stop averaging. Tell me: for which specific degree programs and which economic scenarios does college clearly win?