"School of the hard knocks" isn't a replacement for an academic education.

I think it's best to have both kinds of education, book and street smarts. But, regardless, I think it's important to be educated. Note: By education, I'm not only talking about college. I would also count an active pursuit of self-education (for people who can't afford college) as a step in the right direction. == THE PROBLEM WITH NOT HAVING BOOK SMARTS == An uneducated person might have a good job. They might have a house, car, family and everything they want in their life. They might know all sorts of practical skills such as social skills, cooking, business, being safe, how to go camping and such, but there's still a wide window of things that "street smarts" excludes. There are lots of different cultures in the world that one will only be exposed to by learning about them. Traveling is good, but one can't travel everywhere. You also can't physically travel into the past (to learn how people used to live) or into the future (how some people might be able to live), and one is only able to do that with education. Personal experience alone isn't helpful. It pulls only from a small sample size of where someone lives. Example: An uneducated person says "Magazine models are rich because I know 3 wealthy models and see lots of wealthy models on TV". But data will tell you that it's a difficult industry and most don't make it. Another thing is voting, politics and societal issues. Bob Smith may be doing perfectly in his life working a well-paying blue collar job and raising his family, but when he goes to the voting booth, will he be aware of the issues? Do we want voters deciding the fate of the free world to not be well versed in current events, civics and histroy? Do we want voters who are unsure if Evolution and Global Warming exist, purely because they barely understand science? Do we want a society that favors Astrology over Astronomy? In these political debates, there will be statistics and data. If you lack the skills to properly study them, politicians will get away with erroneous facts. Companies will be able to advertise with misleading statistics. Plus, a lack of education is also a contributing factor to a lot of the pseudo-science out there: aka "The moon makes people crazy", false dieting information, "We only use 10% of our brains", "Everything needs to be gluten free". Can someone who isn't academically versed tell the difference between real-science and psuedo-science? Can they tell the difference between helpful and harmful chemicals versus "natural is always better" or "who cares"? Can they have interesting, deep conversations? This is the issue with thinking street smarts is fine as long as you have a job/family/house. It works for the individual. It hurts society. == EVEN IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD COLLEGE, YOU CAN STILL EDUCATE YOURSELF == College is good if you can get it at an affordable price. I also understand that not everybody has the time or the money for college. A lot of people have to raise a family and put food on the table. But one can still educate themselves spending very little money and putting in a little bit of time every day to learn about different fields of study. I'm not saying self-education is inherently better than getting a college degree, but it's definitely better than doing nothing. If you have time to watch reality TV, video games or go drinking at a bar, you must have at least a little time to put into self-educating. Live near a library? You can rent books for free. You can buy older college books (still filled with plenty of accurate information) on Ebay/Half. You can watch TED talks, Youtube lectures from scientists. Websites like Sparknotes and Khan Academy are full of academic info. You can read the news for a couple minutes each day to keep in touch with current events. Unless you're working 60+ hours a week or you're a single parent raising several kids, you have time to do it (and not being able to go to college isn't an excuse).