Hm... this answer looks short-sighted to me. Education is meant to be a long-term investment. Pointing back to the 3-year work career you've had (or the 0-year work career your friend has had) is simply not compelling evidence that her extra education isn't going to pay off more than yours. I just don't see how a parent who isn't naive should buy this argument.

@Mehrdad it is not an argument but an example of the path being different but the end result being the same. I would recommend everyone to do their best in school but not to the detriment of their (social) health.

@Belle-Sophie: But my comment was literally just explaining to you that "the end result being the same" is exactly what this is NOT. Are you feeling like you're already near the end of your life or career or something? How do you have any idea what the "end" result will be in the 30+ years ahead of you? The only thing you have evidence for here is that the "beginning result" is the same (if it even makes sense to talk about).

@Mehrdad no need to get rude. Well, the “beginning result” is the same then if you want to nitpick. I did not pose an argument, I simply stated from what viewpoint this answer is written. Of course her education is better than mine! But she isn’t happy. Isn’t that what matters?

@Belle-Sophie: ...where was I rude...? And yes, obviously being happy is what matters, but to repeat myself yet again: I'm saying you have no idea who's going to be happier, I dunno, 20 years from now. You only know you're happier now. So you can't draw a conclusion about what will give you a happier career... you can only draw one about "what will make you happier at age 25".

@Mehrdad I'm not drawing a conclusion. It feels like you're attacking my life choices, which is rude. OP should stay in school, if they want a career that needs a degree. If you want to be a doctor or you want a lot of money, that's the obvious best path. But did it occur to you that not everyone desires 'a career'? There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a singer or an artist or a car mechanic. But it doesn't make sense to get a master degree in biology when your passion is something else. Or to continue studying into depression when you're happy in your job and love your hobby.

@Mehrdad I edited the answer some. Do you think it's better now?

@Belle-Sophie: Whoa... you're misinterpreting this to be a personal attack when it wasn't one. I couldn't care less what your life choices were. If you had been in your friend's shoes my position would have been exactly the same as I said above, which is that you are drawing conclusions based on evidence that doesn't support it (even if it's the opposite of your current conclusion). That's all. Whether you're an astronaut or a magician I couldn't care less. (And don't take this personally either, it's the same as I'd feel toward any other user I don't know.)

I just read your changes, and I think you're mistaking what I've been trying to say. You seem to read this as though I'm trying to give life advice, whereas I'm talking about how to produce an effective argument for the parents. I'm trying to say that, when people talk about the long term, you can't point to the short term as compelling evidence for anything, whether it's for or against their position. i.e., the goal here is to convince the parents, and an argument that focuses on the wrong timespan will fail to be convincing regardless of the position that it takes. Does this make sense?

@Mehrdad Yeah, that does make sense. Sorry if my reaction was a bit out of line. I didn't sleep well. I wasn't trying to use my or my friend's life as an argument for anything, just to show that I've seen it happen too and to explain what we did (that worked somewhat) to get a night off or something. Further, I added advice for what we would have done different (get professional help) if we had the chance to do it again.

@Belle-Sophie: No worries~ best :)

@Mehrdad There's plenty of records of college dropouts ending up being famous entrepreneurs. Does that count as a valid argument? To name four of the most well known tech giants: Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Gabe Newell - all college/uni dropouts. From an anecdotal point of view, I've seen people hanging around college in their late-20s and early-30s still stuck about what they want to do with their lives and I've seen dropouts excel through dedication to the topic they love, surpassing the knowledge of the people who got top marks in class.

@Pharap: Well, Zuck and Gates did get their degrees. ;) If you think you're not an outlier like those handful of billionaires, then not really, unless you're willing to cite both sides of each coin (i.e. including those whose lives didn't go the way you mentioned) and show the statistics work out in your favor. If you think you are an outlier, then it's less clear, but personally I'd think no, as I understand the crucial bit here was that they dropped out to go toward a clear opportunity (i.e. their degrees were clearly holding them back from their opportunities), not away from one.

@Pharap: Honestly I think the logical thing to do (whether for figuring out your own life or for convincing someone else) is to show how your situation is specifically similar to that of a few other people who dropped out, such that you can reasonably believe dropping out is likely to produce a similar result for you as it did for them (as opposed to what it did for the average drop-out). (Note the mere fact that you'd both be dropping out isn't a similarity in any way whatsoever... logically this reasoning is supposed to place before you figure out whether you're staying or not, not after.)

@Mehrdad "...where was I rude...?" -- I felt compelled to join this community to help you out here since this is interpersonal stack exchange. First, your extensive use of italicized and bold words -- while helpful in some cases -- comes across at times as patronizing, as if you need to emphasize things or else other users will not understand you (e.g. "how do you have any idea"). Second, you use certain words and phrases, such as "literally just explaining to you" and "simply not compelling evidence", which are rather condescending.

@Drew: Thanks for sharing your interpretation of the issue! I was juggling your comment in my mind for the past hour. I'm stuck on the fact that your take was so different from, well, both of ours. The reason I felt I had to emphasize these words was not because I felt she wasn't somehow intelligent enough to get what I was writing, but because it seemed her brain was subconsciously blocking it out and reading something else. (Which I later saw was a pretty natural reaction to the fact that she took my goal to be criticizing her personal life choices rather than the reasoning in her answer.)

@Drew: That said, I honestly can't say I see why the phrase "simply not compelling evidence" would be condescending, even without the above context. Could you explain that bit?

@Mehrdad I understand where you're coming from. I definitely didn't mean that you meant to be condescending, or even that what you said is condescending, but that it can be interpreted that way. (In retrospect I didn't communicate this clearly, partly due to the character restriction though I suppose I could have made another comment.) As for that specific example, it's not so much the "not compelling evidence", it's more the use of "simply" (included the former part for context). In general, words like simply, obviously, clearly, and of course can be harmful to the conversation.

See this blog post for reference. Though I certainly disagree that "obviously" should never be used, the general point of the article is important. I think it's especially important to be cognizant of how people can interpret what we say on the internet, since we cannot communicate subtle facial expressions, inflections, and other gestures (though styling can help with this -- which is why I appreciate your use of italics in some cases).

@Drew: Wow, interesting. I'd never thought of "simply" as being in the same camp as "obviously"... I always thought of it as emphasizing lack of sophistication rather than lack of difficulty... like if someone says "it is simply not true that I woke up at 10am" that would send a very different message (and tone) to me than "it is obviously not true that I got up at 10am"... one is emphasizing how false the statement is (which makes sense if you got up at like 8am), the other is claiming the statement should be easy to see (which would likely be ridiculous unless they watched you wake up)...

@Drew But yeah I guess in this context it could potentially mean either... I'd never really thought about it, I'll try to keep it in mind. Thanks for the tips!