[whymauri]

I know we're currently in the Church of Paul Graham, where college is useless and it's all about the startup grind. But college is known to lead to better outcomes on average for people who go to college, and there is an intrinsic value, to both individuals and society, in receiving an education.

High school is free, for example, and it's not worthless.

[sgjohnson]

> But college is known to lead to better outcomes on average for people who go to college

That largely depends on the field you're studying. STEM? Sure. Perhaps not for software engineering, because that these days can be entirely self-taught,if you're a person capable of it.

But everything else? Probably worthless. A gender studies or liberal arts degree is not going to make you money.

[whymauri]

STEM has the highest class mobility, but even just an associates degree is shown to have a net positive outcome. For example of societal benefits and savings, education (yes, even in topics you may not deem 'useful') reduces crime.

And is everything else really 'worthless?' Do we not need lawyers? Social workers? Teachers? Tutors? Librarians? Student debt is a barrier to solving teacher shortages, and not everyone is teaching STEM.

[redwall_hp]

STEM degrees are liberal arts degrees. "Liberal arts" is what is called "a traditional western education," which encompasses all of the sciences.

> Liberal arts education (from Latin liberalis "free" and ars "art or principled practice")[1] is the traditional academic program in Western higher education.[2] Liberal arts takes the term art in the sense of a learned skill rather than specifically the fine arts. Liberal arts education can refer to studies in a liberal arts degree program or to a university education more generally. Such a course of study contrasts with those that are principally vocational, professional, or technical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education

Misusing the term is just participating in anti-intellectual propagandizing.