I think jellicle makes a good comment on this issue, as he usually does on education policy issues. The chart shown in the submitted article does not "prove" that college degrees have economic value, in and of themselves, up to the present value of the lifetime difference in earnings between degree holders and people who lack degrees.
showing that colleges preferentially admit by ability to pay rather than by intelligence or ability to gain from college studies (a finding consistent with the advice given by consulting firms that advise colleges on admission practices)
so that the job-market success of college graduates does not show so much that college education as such improves the qualities of workers as it signals to the job market which job applicants were most advantaged before college age.
Many college students are actually academically adrift,
and Carnevale is a thoughtful writer about what both colleges and the students who attend them have to do to gain the best benefit from college attendance. So when I submitted this link (which was emailed to me by a local friend this evening), I was hoping it would gain the several thoughtfully disagreeing comments it has gained since I posted it, so that we can distinguish the benefits of attending college as such (which still need to be enhanced in the typical case) from the signaling effect of being admitted to college (which indubitably has some strong benefits in the job market, varying by college major and by industry).
The OP's chart is meaningless because of selection bias. Presumably, the college grads would be more employable because of higher intelligence, greater access to resources or better habits, which led them to college (I know there are many exceptions to this).
The real question is, what would many of those college grads have done otherwise in those 4 years, with the money they would have saved?
FWIW I learned a ton about myself in college and wouldn't trade that experience for anything.
The report underlying the chart
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/CollegeAdv...
goes into more details. I have followed the writings of one of the report co-authors, Anthony Carnevale,
http://chronicle.com/article/Minding-the-Midpoint-Where/1288...
http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/302016/mellowing...
for years, and his earlier writings include reports on college access for low-income, high-ability students,
http://tcf.org/publications/2010/9/how-increasing-college-ac...
showing that colleges preferentially admit by ability to pay rather than by intelligence or ability to gain from college studies (a finding consistent with the advice given by consulting firms that advise colleges on admission practices)
http://www.maguireassoc.com/
so that the job-market success of college graduates does not show so much that college education as such improves the qualities of workers as it signals to the job market which job applicants were most advantaged before college age.
Many college students are actually academically adrift,
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/academically-a...
and Carnevale is a thoughtful writer about what both colleges and the students who attend them have to do to gain the best benefit from college attendance. So when I submitted this link (which was emailed to me by a local friend this evening), I was hoping it would gain the several thoughtfully disagreeing comments it has gained since I posted it, so that we can distinguish the benefits of attending college as such (which still need to be enhanced in the typical case) from the signaling effect of being admitted to college (which indubitably has some strong benefits in the job market, varying by college major and by industry).