If you could show that just because the requirement is artificial there actually is zero value of going to college you would have a point. Artificial requirement for employment or not there still is value from going, until you prove otherwise.
Yes and out of all the people I know the ones making the most money are doing so either because of their degree or because of the school they went to. None of these anecdotal evidence points proves either side of the argument.
You're going to have to back this up.
You keep questioning my statistics yet showing no statistics yourself. When it comes to postgrad education I can again point to the earnings difference of those with a masters or professional degree or better and again you are going to say those degrees are actually worthless the only reason those people make more is because they are actually smarter the degree has nothing to do with anything. You don't have to be necessarily wrong unfortunately just by proving a selection bias could exist with my data doesn't prove that you're right. There's a lot more evidence that shows that a college degree is worth the marginal increase in earnings that is required to make it worth it. Until you start showing stats that indicate otherwise that is.
You think the market is going to start valuing a degree less and less and all the studies I've seen show that more and more jobs are going to be requiring degrees, no doubt for that signaling value. Who's right?

As far as it being a "significant number", IIRC only a quarter of the current college students go to private schools, and I'll bet its only a small portion of those students that get liberal arts degrees. How significant is that?

College is the minor leagues for football. Defensive players(other than pass rushers) need the schooling. A few of the offensive standouts probably only need two years. The offensive line needs the schooling to block as a unit.
In basketball many superstars can play the NBA straight out of high school. In baseball there's a minor league.
College is a training ground for football players. They may not need their other college classes for football. Going to college is like having a mentor for poker.

I can't find a single link provided by you for any of your stats. Did you just make those stats up yourself?

My stats are the earnings difference between those with a college degree vs those without.

College classes have nothing to do with football players growth as football players. The NCAA has basically been coopted by the NFL to be their minor league while coaches and administrators make millions. That's why there is no minor league for the NFL.

You still have not provided a link. Few doubt that baby boomers benefited from having a college degree. We are doubting the value of the current college degrees. And there wont be any stats to resolve this debate for at least 30 years.

And of course, you're totally ignoring one of the most important pieces of data in this discussion.

You're doing it here, too.

The "value" of a degree doesn't have to be dropping for you to be wrong. The fact that you don't understand this is yet is what everyone is LOLing at you about.

Just go to BLS. IIRC the current gap between those with just a bachelors and those with just high school is around $10k/yr, making any degree more than worth it. A masters or professional degree increases that gap markedly obv.

And the current value, if you're talking about expected earnings, is tied pretty heavily to the state of the economy which means stats 30 years from now could tell a completely different story.

Which is?

I believe what you're arguing (again you never really say what you're arguing) is that even if the value of a degree is not dropping the cost of education has gone so high that it has outrun the expected return. Still haven't seen evidence of this being true.

It's amazing you can say "Which is?" to the first part and then in your next sentence ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION.

The stages of a semtex argument:

1) ignore price, only look at value
2) oh what about price?
3) but nahhhh, I'm just going to pretend prices don't matter.

Brilliant

Like I posted before, 3/4 of current college students go to public school, which costs on average $8k/yr for in state and $12k/yr for out of state. Private school is $28k/yr on average. Average grant package for all students is $6k/yr.

Prove that these costs, on average, have outpaced the average return on the investment

EDIT and please factor in all additional costs as you see fit cause i'm pretty sure bringing that up is going to be your next method of avoiding doing any work to back up your claim

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that the value for playing in college for an athlete (assuming he can go pro) is almost entirely from practicing with the team and not taking Accounting classes?

What PVN is leaving out is the marketability of a college degree over someone not having one. Meaning, even though a degree may not be marketable in the field that was studied, many will likely hire someone with 'any' degree over someone without. I think the comparison of UE rates between HS(or less) grads v college grads shows this as HS UE rate is quite a bit higher. Where does that leave the person who doesn't have a degree as the middle class erodes more and more while people with degrees keep taking jobs normally done by HS(or less) graduates? Is being in debt, but working really that much worse than only being able to find a low wage job(if any) with virtually no social mobility?

b