Your comment stated that college doesn't add much to a person's employability. (If you had wanted to be less obfuscatory, you could simply have said "a [HS] education is already adequate qualification for many jobs; college doesn't add much").
That was your claim. (I don't think your claim is correct of many OECD countries' colleges, but it was the claim you made.)
You then replied to J-Kuhn to say that they had misunderstood your comment by (mis)paraphrasing it as "Students attend college to become qualified to work."
> Most graduates aren't really qualified to work anywhere that they couldn't have worked before going to college in the first place.
The double-negative could be read both ways: "Most HS grads aren't really qualified to work anywhere and college doesn't add much" or "a [HS] education is already adequate qualification for many jobs; college doesn't add much". So we apply Occam's razor and since the [U-5] unemployment rate for [US] HS grads is << 50%, conclude you meant the former. But the comment was still needlessly obfuscation. Even if we assume which country and education system you were talking about.
Conversely, it's a little weird how I ignored your lack of clarity and didn't point it out so starkly, then you reduce the interaction to this ping-pong. I don't intend to overflow the stack on this.
