My issue with the article boils down to his comparison of a spectrum of college results (including stupid decisions) with indexing returns (excluding stupid decisions).

makes sense, i think the 'on average' bit is extremely misleading. but i do think it is right to exclude people who screw up on the market; the study is trying to contrast bad and good scenarios.

i think the whole thing could boil down to the sentence: "skipping college and investing your pseudo-tuition sometimes will be a better idea than going to college" and the only rebuttal needed is: "if you're going into debt for college, you'll get a loan. if you're going into debt to put money in an index fund, you will not"

I think a partially informed investor is more likely to get 2% than 7%

i mean, i suppose. but there is really only one piece of information in the equation. "do not remove your money." you're implying a second piece of information which gets lost, "sometimes this process will suck." it seems like a rule 2 -- see rule 1 situation to me.