Doesn't take too long to find one version of the story. There are plenty of quotes in there that can be used by both sides of the argument. In particular, I think we should focus on the methodology: So, if you major in something with no idea what you could possibly do with a bachelor's degree in that field (e.g. art history was mentioned in the story), then you are highly likely to end up in a job (if you get one at all) that is classified by the Labor Department as not requiring a college education. No surprise there, as I would guess that ZERO of the 900+ job classifications that the Labor Department tracks require a degree in art history, so the art history B.A. holder will need to snag a job that DOES require a college degree but has nothing to do with art history, else be classified as underemployed! I can tell someone who is about to graduate high school that, regardless of the economy in 4.5 years, it will continue to be true that if they major in art history, they will be highly unlikely to snag a job in accounting, finance, computer science, engineering, basic sciences, nursing, or even teaching, because graduates with degrees in exactly those fields will be competing with them for the jobs. Duh. So, "go to college and major in any old subject" is obviously not a ticket to riches, but that does not tell us much about someone who is supposedly a top-notch student with lots of A.P. courses who could choose several different majors, paying attention to the career prospects for each major. And if the father of that student wants to say that going to college is not working out for lots of kids, then we also need to see the statistics in this economy for the kids who do not go to college, right?