[jyl]

In the bigger picture, the way to earn more income is to go on to graduate school. On average, those with graduate degrees earn considerably more than those with undergraduate degrees. And, of course, many of those higher-income persons have graduate degrees in law or business, and many of those got there via the much-maligned liberal arts undergraduate degree.

Clearly, though, if a college kid is planning to never go to graduate school, then the engineering and business fields are going to pay more. In that respect, the article is correct and he cites the evidence for it.

What I don't see any evidence cited for, though, is that lower-income professions have lower accountability or that teachers have lower SAT and GRE scores. I don't have an opinion on whether these claims are correct or not, but I am kind of suspicious that Boortz doesn't show any data for his assertions. Especially the "lower SAT/GRE" claims - there should be hard evidence for that.

It is a common rhetorical trick to start by presenting an argument that your audience will agree with, with lots of evidence to bolster your credibility, and then slide into your real argument, with a lot of hand-waving so that your audience won't notice that the evidence suddenly stopped.

Do you think Boortz knows this trick?