and amazingly, "thoroughly successful" people (high salary, only) quite often demonstrate their dumb-as-bag-of-hammers status, without prompting.
such is the nature of your straw argument, my friend.
So, sure, you need to make a case for either side of your coin, which you curiously do not do. job /= education. lol--look at the dumbfuck in the Whitehouse.
educated means educated (a defined term, based on degree attainment). That's the point. everything else is irrelevant in this analysis, but I don't think you understand that. You're conflating this with a causal relationship to intellect absolutely ignores the data, the statistics...and simply reveals a profoundly naive understanding of modeling.
Zinfamous already suggested the problem SomeOnesMind1 shows in his assumptions and perceptions.
There are a lot of people who've finished college, and perhaps even more who never gained entry, who assume that the purpose of an education is to "get a better job, develop the skills to start a business, or acquire a lot of money and material things".
The origin of "The University" was a Spanish institution around the time of the Renaissance -- the "University" of Salamanca. Whether the students were primarily from the wealthy, or there was some opportunity for students selected from the lesser classes, the purpose of the institution was to promote Truth-seeking.
Today's more desperate college students choose their majors according to a potential to command higher income. They choose a square on a chessboard -- land on it, and adjust to the consequences. A person can be "well-schooled" like a Donald Trump, or he can be well-educated -- the two notions do not coincide.
People can obtain their education in different ways. Dickens worked in a blacking factory while his father was in debtor's prison, and one has to wonder how he acquired his knowledge of the King's English and human nature to write some of the best classics in the language. By the way -- adolescents should read "Great Expectations" with enough adult guidance to be able to actually learn something from it. Sam Clemens -- Mark Twain -- another example. Edison didn't go to university, and he was publishing a mobile newspaper on a railroad train by the time he was ten or eleven. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard in his first or second year. Eric Hoffer was struck blind at the age of six, regained his sight around 15 and began reading furiously for fear he might lose his sight again. He worked in various blue-collar jobs -- he was a longshoreman. And he earned his PhD eventually after he had published his ground-breaking book -- "True Believer" -- applicable to understanding cults like the Trump Base.
But for many of these examples, money may not have been their primary objective. Money is not a reliable indicator of intelligence; inherited money, such as Trump's, even less so.
People choose a square on the chess-board, they land on it, they commit to it, and if they don't do requisite market studies, they may wonder why they aren't making progress. We would hope they chose a square because of something they enjoyed doing. If they spend all their energy and time with the goal of just getting rich, they may never learn anything, they may never understand anything but the limited knowledge they have for their method of getting rich. They may never read much or acquire much from that reading.
Howard Schultz might have become a journalist because he graduated as a "Communications" major. He managed to get mid-level management jobs, perhaps for being in the right place at the right time. Then, he chose to borrow money and start three barista bars.
Let me ask anyone. Is your self-concept amenable to being the proprietor of three barista bars? Or maybe you wanted to be a college professor, or a police detective, or a nurse, or a forest ranger, public school teacher or any number of things that only have a certain limited income potential. If you stick with that one thing, does it make you stupid? And if you don't get rich after getting a college degree, does that make you stupid? And if you get rich but know little -- like Trump -- does that make you smart?
It is the myths I've tried to explore here that have misled people into supporting the Disaster-in-Chief, Donald Trump. For the most part, they have nothing in common with the man born with a gold cell-phone in one hand and a silver spoon up his keester. And the inability to see that makes them either ignorant, or incapable of admitting their ignorance and so just plain stupid.