> Challenging programs have relatively little to do with it. It's almost 100% about the prestigious schools and the networks that come along with them: the old "it's not what you know; it's who you know," deal.

I didn't go to a particularly prestigious school. I didn't know anybody at the job I got as a new grad. I individually made more money in my first year out of university than most families did mid-career. I was not unusual among those in my program.

A degree in engineering pays off in part because it's a challenging program.

I went to a prestigious school and studied physics - place was ranked best in the world for the subject at the time.

The degree is worthless. The wretched right-wing connections are even more worthless.

Are you working in physics or a related field? It seems odd that you would associate the political beliefs of what is surely only a portion of your collegiate network with the science degree you got.

Many (most?) people can get into whatever the main land grant/public research university that exists in their respective state, even more so after a year of community college. In general, almost all of these schools offer a good quality education, especially if you avoid degree-mill majors (e.g. communications, psych, history, economics, etc...) and choose any critical thinking degree (STEM, Philosophy, maybe English/Lit).

If you aren't going to meet that bar, then it's probably not worth it to go to college because you're probably not going to learn much.

My post was not about getting a good quality education. In fact, my contention is that getting a good education is less relevant than the specific school and major one chooses. For a software developer just out of college, an EECS degree from Berkeley is going to beat a degree in (say) math, physics, or robotics from Podunk State, all else being equal. And, all else is rarely equal, because the Berkeley grad is going to have a way better network than the Podunk State grad.