> Seems the same logic like looking at Bill Gates or Zuckerberg and claiming college dropouts get rich.
Gallup's report on the "top 1%" kind of backs up the idea, to be fair.
Sort of. It shows that having a degree is significant when it is an advanced degree that offers exclusive access to a market (think medical doctors, lawyers, etc.), enabling monopolistic capitalization. But dropouts are more likely to be in the top 1% than those with only a bachelor or other insignificant degree.
I didn't choose any particular direction. Your assertion that "college dropouts get rich" carries a lot of truth, though. However, buying access to a monopoly is hard to beat.
> but the consequence of being successful before the graduation.
It is unlikely they were all successful beforehand. Financial success typically comes later in life. More likely it suggests that those who chase degrees that aren't backed by monopoly are not prioritizing (financial) success. The hard truth in life is that it is hard to do well in something when you are distracted with something else!
The ruse when talking about financial success and college is that:
1. We typically lump "college degree or higher" into a single group, not differentiating between those who are buying access to a monopoly and those who are taking a vacation.
2. We don't like to recognize the spectrum of people. Someone with, say, severe autism, that limits their participation in the economy, isn't going to find an autism cure in graduating from college, but they are treated as if that is the case.
Which can lead some to think that college itself is somehow magically a key to success. Ask them to explain the magic and you'll get all kinds of bizarre, handwavvy explanations, but once someone believes in magic...
> This shows that dropouts have a lower income as graduates
Obviously. The aforementioned crippled autist doesn't have the ability to be a graduate. And will suffer economically because of the same life challenges. In other words, people aren't the same. But you are playing the same silly game colleges love to, pretending that all people are exactly the same, which is obviously not the case.
It is telling that you avoided presenting a report that breaks income down by equivalent (to the extent that is reasonably possible) people. The report you offer is valid for what it is, but doesn't support your claim as it is made within the context of this discussion.
> The dropouts in the top 1% are outliers.
To be in the top 1% requires being an outlier[1] full stop. The dropouts are disproportionately represented, though. There are surprisingly, on the surface, few "bachelor only" members in the top 1%. But when you think about it, it isn't all that surprising. It's hard to reach 1% status with other distractions going on in your life. There is only so much time in the day.
[1] Granted, the data suggests that the top 1% is more like 20% of the population. It does not require being the extreme outlier that it may originally seem. How can 20% be 1%? Time. The top 1% is not fixed membership.
Seems the same logic like looking at Bill Gates or Zuckerberg and claiming college dropouts get rich.