Most 18-22 years waste 4 years in university not acquiring any skills that would help them in a competitive job market.
As a result, they move back in with mom and dad at age 22, now thousands of dollars in debt.
As a result, they move back in with mom and dad at age 22, now thousands of dollars in debt.
This "it's your fault for majoring in gender studies" meme is a red herring. There was a time in the U.S. where one parent could support a family and purchase a house while the other stayed at home with the kids. With nothing more than a high school diploma.
most people major in more 'actionable' subjects such as business, nursing, phycology, etc.
That is why poor in India is diff from poor in California. Even though to the poor in India, the Californian poverty seems like the stuff of kings. Etc.
In the 1950s, in the US, you could live on one income of a high-school graduate. Today, you still can... but you have to live a 1950s lifestyle.
But if you look at what the wealthiest (or even the upper middle class) have, no, you can't do that. If that becomes your measure of "how you're supposed to live", then no, you can't live on one income.
But sure, let's blame those foolish, foolish young adults for their crazy choices.
As for the other part: I was told, explicitly, that thinking about college as a jobs-training experience was the wrong approach. Learning how to think, how to write, how to organize ideas, that was valuable in and of itself. And maybe at some time, it was true. With a degree in the '70s, you could get in to a lot of sensible middle-class jobs, even in art-history and psychology.It turned out not to be true [edit: when I was in college, not in the '70s], but I was ill equipped to understand that.
I also suspect that you have only the most superficial understanding of your cohort's motivations, yet seem absolutely confident in your analysis. I wonder if a course in psychology or philosophy would have benefited you some.