The article is not clear and/or misleading. It talked of those students that went to a two or three year school Vs those that graduated from a four year. It does not state that those that went to a two or three year school graduated. It also ignore a massive number of students that never go beyond the first year (or really, semester) at any school.It would seem to be a complicated issue, eg the "for profit" outfits that have scammed a lot of students underlying a disproportionate number of students not able to pay back their loans. This is an interesting article about the complexities.
Those 'one year' students are no better off (and some may say worse off) than a person never went beyond HS. They have debt and no 'qualification'.
Quite a few students drop out after one semester, get a loan for the entire second year and are not actually attending. The mindset again being 'I do not have to repay a student loan'. Or they get a loan for a full course load and take just the bare minimum, often just one class, one day a week.
The 'for profit' (and all the schools are 'for profit - no such thing as a true 'non-profit') two year schools are often a scam, companies that hire know the 'graduates' are not the best candidates. The students are led to believe the school will get them that great, high paying job and are usually met by disappointment. Some of the really bad ones were shut down over the last six years thankfully, but there are a bunch other that are really borderline.
I have a very hard time feeling sorry for the person with a PhD in 15th century French Literature who cannot get a 'big money' job.