> If you think this is a bad thing, you are well and truly lost.

Well, you were claiming that the book/study did not take this into account so GP posted evidence that the book/study does indeed address your concerns.

Whether it is a bad thing or not is irrelevant to the concern you expressed, to wit - that the socialisation and play is not addressed by the study.

No, I did not.

> Whether it is a bad thing or not is irrelevant to the concern you expressed

No, the entire point of me asking about it is because I think it has value to people making educational choices.

> that the socialisation and play is not addressed by the study.

Yes, and the way the study addresses this is batshit insane, unless you are an unfeeling utilitarian robot.

> No, I did not.

So how exactly is the reader supposed to interpret this statement of yours:

> So what about the partying, making friends for life, and learning to be an adult?

>

> What about care-free student life as a carrot to incentivise young adults to go into careers that might not be good for them personally, but good for society?

When someone looks at a study and says "What about $FOO", they generally mean "Why is $FOO not addressed?", and not "Your conclusions about $FOO are wrong".

You said

> "What about $FOO"

but you meant

> "Your $FOO conclusions are wrong"

Is this correct?