Look, I get why people think college is a good investment. On paper, graduates earn more over a lifetime. But here's where the physics of this breaks down—we're looking at the system's efficiency, not just the raw output. The cost of college has skyrocketed way past inflation. Student debt is now a trillion-dollar drag on the economy. That's like adding friction to every financial decision a graduate makes for decades. And for what? A degree that often doesn't guarantee a job in your field. Meanwhile, trades and apprenticeships offer solid careers with zero debt and real skills from day one. You're learning by doing, not sitting in lecture halls. College can work for some people, sure. But as a one-size-fits-all path? The math just doesn't add up for most folks anymore.

Take my buddy Jake. He went to a fancy private school, racked up $80k in debt for a communications degree. Now he's a barista, same as the guy who never went to college. But that barista doesn't have $600 monthly loan payments. Ching, you mentioned sports giving a better shot at going pro. But that's like saying buying a lottery ticket is a good investment because someone wins. The odds are tiny. For the 99.9% of athletes who don't turn pro, they're left with the same debt and no pro paycheck. College is an expensive filter, not a guarantee. The system has massive entropy—so much wasted energy and money that doesn't translate to useful outcomes. Apprenticeships? They conserve your resources while building real momentum. College dissipates them in interest payments and gen-ed requirements that don't matter.

Here's a stat that stopped me cold: 40% of college students don't even graduate within six years. That's not a small fringe—that's millions of people with debt and no degree to show for it. You're focusing on doctors and pro athletes. But those are exceptions, not the rule. For every successful med school grad, there's someone with a psychology degree working retail. The system has terrible signal-to-noise ratio. And that 96% match rate? That's for people who already got into med school. You're skipping the whole filter before that—the pre-med weed-out classes, the MCAT, the insane competition. It's like saying 100% of people who summit Everest survive the descent. Technically true, but ignores the climb. Look, college can work. But we're treating it like the default path when it's really a high-stakes gamble. Apprenticeships and trades give you a career with zero downside. That's just better physics—no debt, real skills, immediate momentum.

Here's the thing about your doctor example - it's a perfect case of survivorship bias. You're looking at the ones who made it and saying "see, it works!" But you're ignoring all the pre-med students who washed out after two years of chemistry, still carrying $30k in debt with nothing to show for it. College is like building a rocket where half the launches fail on the pad. Sure, the ones that reach orbit go far. But in any other industry, a 40% failure rate would be unacceptable. Meanwhile, an electrician apprenticeship has a near 100% completion rate with zero debt. You say the debate is about whether college pays off if you finish. But that's like asking if investing in a risky stock is worth it - cherry-picking only the winners. The real question is whether the system as a whole makes sense. And right now, we're forcing everyone into a high-risk path when safer alternatives exist.

Right, let me bring some thermodynamics into this. You're asking me to ignore the 40% who don't graduate and only look at the winners. That's like measuring a engine's efficiency by only looking at the energy that comes out as motion, ignoring all the waste heat. College has terrible energy conservation. You're dumping massive amounts of time and money into a system where a huge chunk gets dissipated as debt, stress, and dropped-out students. Even for graduates, the return is shrinking. Starting salaries haven't kept pace with tuition increases since the 80s. You want to settle terms? Fine. If you go to college for a specific high-demand field and actually finish, it can be worth it. But that's a narrow path with a lot of failure modes. The system itself is inefficient. I'd rather put my energy into something with less entropy.

Here's where your argument breaks down for me. You keep saying "if you get the right degree and finish, it's worth it." But that's like saying a car is fuel-efficient if you only drive downhill. You're ignoring the massive energy loss in the system. College debt doesn't care about your intentions. Even successful graduates spend years paying off loans instead of building wealth. That's negative momentum right when you need it most. Meanwhile, someone in a trade is earning and learning from day one, no debt anchor. You call this survivorship bias? Fine. But even the "survivors" are carrying a financial burden that tradespeople don't. The system has too much friction. I'll take a path with less entropy every time.

You keep saying "if you finish, it's worth it," but that's like saying a rocket is efficient if you ignore all the fuel that burns up before launch. The system's design is what matters, not just the ideal case. College debt compounds interest while you're still studying—that's negative work from day one. A trade apprentice gets paid to learn, no debt, real skills that transfer immediately. You're focusing on the peak performers, but the average outcome is what most people actually get. And the average graduate takes 20 years to pay off loans. That's a whole generation of lost financial momentum. College can work for specific fields, sure. But as a default path, it's got way too much wasted energy built into the system.