Grade: Jordan Martinez

Everyone says you need a degree to get a good job, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. My cousin makes $85k as a plumber with no student debt. Meanwhile graduates are starting at $55k with $40k+ in loans. I want to actually look at the numbers instead of just going with what careers advisors say.

Found Ministry of Education data showing average graduate earnings at 5 years out. Engineering and medicine graduates earn significantly more, but arts and social science graduates barely earn more than non-graduates. The 'graduate premium' everyone talks about is really a 'specific-degree premium'. This changes my thinking - it's not uni vs no uni, it's which uni path vs which alternative.

Realised the question isn't binary. Different degrees have completely different returns.

Big realisation this week. The earnings data I found in entry 2 has selection bias - people who choose engineering were probably going to earn well regardless because of their maths skills and personality type. The degree didn't necessarily cause the higher earnings. This is like the gym membership problem - people who buy gym memberships are already health-conscious. I need to find studies that control for pre-existing ability.

Identified a major flaw in the evidence I was using. Selection bias means correlation between degrees and earnings doesn't prove causation.

Found a Dale & Krueger study that compared students who got into selective unis but chose not to attend. It showed that attending a selective uni didn't matter much - what mattered was being the kind of person who could get in. This supports my selection bias concern. My position now: university is worth it for specific technical skills (medicine, engineering, law) but for general degrees, the person matters more than the paper.

Found rigorous research that confirmed my selection bias hypothesis. Position is solidifying around a nuanced view.

Ms. Torres showed us data about university graduates having better health outcomes and civic participation. I think this is the same selection bias problem again. People from stable families are more likely to go to uni AND more likely to be healthy. She seemed to think it was a strong argument for university but I've already dealt with this kind of evidence.

Nothing new. Same selection bias issues in different data.

Career advisor pointed out that many jobs list degree requirements even when the actual work doesn't need one. Called it 'credential inflation'. I see their point but this just means the system is broken, not that uni is worth it. If anything it supports my argument - people are forced to get degrees not because they learn anything useful but because employers use it as a lazy filter.

Acknowledged a new argument but it actually supports my existing position.

Read an article about how networking at university creates lifelong professional connections. I think this is overstated. You can network anywhere - through work, industry events, online communities. University doesn't have a monopoly on meeting people. My position hasn't changed and I don't think it should at this point since I've looked at this from many angles.

Nothing. The networking argument doesn't hold up.

Final reflection. University is a bad deal for most students based on pure cost-benefit analysis. The only exception is specific technical/professional degrees where you literally can't practice without the qualification. For everything else, the 'graduate premium' is mostly selection bias and credential inflation. I'm confident in this conclusion after a semester of research.

No change. I've thoroughly examined the evidence and my position is well-supported.