Dumb business op-eds day at NYT, part 1

The Sunday NYT op-eds page has two real clunkers, both on business news. (I'm not counting MoJo Dowd's clunker about Obama being "bi" on gay marriage; I know that's what it's about without clicking the link, which I refuse to do.)

Anyway, back to business stupidity, and from the NYT's two business-focused columnists not named Paul Krugman. Dave Leonhardt and Joe Nocera both write clunkers.

First, Dave Leonhardt argues going to college is a good investment even if you're just a cashier afterward.

Here's "interesting" comment one:

First, many colleges are not very expensive, once financial aid is taken into account. Average net tuition and fees at public four-year colleges this past year were only about $2,000 (though Congress may soon cut federal financial aid).

He ignores that more elite public colleges charge more than that, that much of the financial aid today is loan-based, not grant-based as when I was in college, and that much of the loan-based financial aid is not federal loans, or even federally-guaranteed private loans, therefore, it's loans with high interest rates.

Then, he subconsciously admits college today, and the alleged need for it, is due to academic inflation, even though that's NOT the gist of his argument:

Construction workers, police officers, plumbers, retail salespeople and secretaries, among others, make significantly more with a degree than without one. Why? Education helps people do higher-skilled work, get jobs with better-paying companies or open their own businesses.

This follows the pattern of the early 20th century, when blue- and white-collar workers alike benefited from having a high-school diploma.

But, if college today is for non white-collar people what high school used to be, then we have academic inflation.

Finally, there's this unsubstantiated claim:
Then there are the skeptics themselves, the professors, journalists and others who say college is overrated. They, of course, have degrees and often spend tens of thousands of dollars sending their children to expensive colleges.

I don’t doubt that the skeptics are well meaning. But, in the end, their case against college is an elitist one — for me and not for thee. And that’s rarely good advice.
No proof is offered of this alleged "elitism."

Beyond this, Leonhardt never asks if all high school graduates, or adult higher education students, are psychologically a good fit for traditional college.

Several recent surveys have addressed this issue by proposing a new vo-tech system, but one that doesn't have the race-based tracking of the past. Leonhardt appears clueless about this.