I would assume that the rural are rational to the same degree as anyone else, so the statistical difference mostly means they find college less beneficial relative to their opportunities. There is too much of an agenda feel to this piece, from the title to selective interviews and statistics

What agenda is it you see in this? I mean, the author seems to believe that higher education is a net good thing, which you can disagree with if you like. A lot of people seem to disagree though evidenced by gifts made to universities, the effort put into going to college, etc. I thoroughly enjoyed college (went on to get a PhD in physics) and I never viewed it in terms of job training. For me, it was the first time I heard solid rational conservative arguments that made me think hard about my positions on social and economic issues.

I also make this assumption about non wealthy urban kids. But the fact is, both groups are caught in a decades-long stagnation. There's nothing wrong with the rural lifestyle. But let's not pretend everything is just peachy in rural America.

Rationality in normal people interacts substantially with the environment they're in, especially when we're talking about eighteen-year-olds with no experience trying to fully support themselves.

> I would assume that the rural are rational to the same degree as anyone else,

The rural have limited social interaction, leading to a biased worldview.

I've had more social interaction thrust upon me living in a rural community than I have ever been subject to while living in a city. You can't avoid it out in the country due to the fact your neighbours will incessantly invite you to events they are hosting, drop by to see how things are going, ask if you need a hand the second they see you working on something outside, etc.

Given a smaller total number of people, the number you have meaningful interactions with on a day to day basis actually winds up being higher since each person isn't just another 2 - 5 minute encounter but someone that you see regularly, who likely lives nearby, who knows other people that you've met, and frequents the same locations. It's a tighter knit.

You also don't have the luxury of choosing the people that you establish a rapport with, whereas living in a large centre I could easily pick and choose the people I associate with based on how much they agree with my views and opinions. I may not agree with the people I know now 100% of the time but we make it work, being polite and reasonable seems to come with the territory.

I don't take issue with any of this, but there is a higher likelihood that all or most of the people you interact with will have a similar background to you and may not really challenge a lot of your preconceptions. I don't think there's anything wrong with a rural lifestyle, but I do think that college could really enrich a rural person's life, even if that person decided to go back home after he was done.

I have lived in a rural area most of my live and it's not about limited social interaction - it's the fact that international affairs don't affect us as much as it does people who live in cities. Therefore it's just not as interesting to people here.

Not to mention that, in my experience – and the job data seems to back this up – there are often more career opportunities in rural areas (but not all rural areas). I assume this is due to the fact that the group of people competing for the jobs available are much smaller in numbers than you find in larger urban areas.

While one job in the city might attract 100 applicants, one job in a small community of 100 people total might attract two applicants. This forces rural employers to be less choosy about who they hire, and enables applicants to be less special as they do not need to stand out from the crowd in the same way their big city counterparts need to.

While I am not about to suggest that college is only for building careers, I find a large segment of students treat it as nothing more. When you remove the feeling that you need a college degree to get a job, as is the case for many who look for work in rural areas, that removes the reason why many want to attain a degree.

Generally, education for education's sake is not something our society values. We are, I think quite unfortunately, taught from an early age that jobs are the whole reason for attending school. Few, regardless of whether they live in a major city or in the country, recognize the value beyond that.

My thoughts exactly.

After living in cities all my life, I moved to a small farm about a dozen years ago. I still keep track of what's going on nationally and internationally, but I've found that it simply doesn't affect me as much as it did when I lived in a city. I stress out a lot less.

Rural people think Trump's as much of an idiot as urban folk do: it's just that the media think we all love him.

I see this as more of the condescending attitude of the type the comment was complaining about.