Ok, twice now, you've boiled the benefit of higher education which doesn't result in placement at jobs requiring higher education as partying for 4 years, and a weak lingering familiarity with literature. I don't think that's fair. No one here is arguing for higher education for apathetic, disengaged students, or for low standards in higher education.

Also, this is twice that you've pulled out this 40k figure. Is that from some other article? I didn't think most degrees are subsidized that heavily, or that most college students have access to funding at that level, although if you have sources you'd like to cite, I'd be interested to see them.

[W]e are discussing workers who are choosing not to make a productive use of our investment in them. Three points: (a) it's not always obvious whether a person's education is being put to productive use. Taking a job which directly requires that education is only one way a person might put their education to productive use. (b) among people who aren't putting their education to productive use, are these really all about choice? All of the friends I have that graduated in the past couple years who haven't ended up in jobs which specifically required their education haven't chosen to not make productive use of their education. The job market for a lot of areas is tough right now, and a new graduate attempting to put his or her education to good use has to compete with more experienced applicants even for low level positions. (c) even if they haven't found jobs where they can put their education to good use yet, doesn't mean they won't when the job market changes. I think a lot of the people you'd like to paint as being deliberately bad investments are actually victims of poor economic circumstance.