What my point was, is that I don't feel there are really that many jobs which absolutely require a four-year degree. Unless you're training to be, say, a professional scientist, I have a hard time imagining a job where you couldn't learn all you needed to know in the span of a couple of weeks. Sure, companies may not want to pay for training, but that doesn't mean a four-year degree is necessary to complete the tasks you have to do.
I mean sure, if you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, the degree makes sense - there's so much information needed that it'd be impossible to be good at the job after just a couple of weeks of training. On the other hand, though, I could be a teacher, and a successful one, with no training whatsoever. I don't mean to insult teachers, either, I think it's a challenging yet rewarding profession. However, the law requires I spend four years in grad school to become a teacher. Why? I don't know. I have the experience, I have the know-how, I have the passion, but no - I need to spend four years obtaining a piece of paper to prove what I can already demonstrate. On the flip side of things, I can easily ace tests on subjects I don't even really know in the first place.
Point is, what does a piece of paper prove? Why do we use pieces of paper to decide what jobs require skill and what jobs don't? And most importantly, why does a piece of paper determine what skills you do or don't have? It honestly kinda reminds me of the movie trope, "Show, don't tell." If I can demonstrate a particular skill, shouldn't that count more than how much I spent on college? And if I am very skilled in a particular field, shouldn't that matter more in terms of income than whether or not I have a degree?