"The famous paper Estimating the Return to College Selectivity Over the Career Using Administrative Earning Data (2011) by Dale and Krueger raises the possibility that on average, attending a more selective college doesn’t raise earnings at all. They found that as a group, there was no statistically significant difference in income later in life between students who went to more selective colleges and students who went to less selective colleges. Their finding is somewhat robust: it’s based on a large (~10k) sample size, it’s true both of the class of 1976 and the class of 1989, it’s true of the class of 1976 from age 25 through age 50 and it’s true both of men and of women."
Reason.com reports that this consensus is cracking 
And the correction at the end begs a fascinating question about
whether the media should present both sides of an issue. If
99% of research says A and 1% says not-A, is the media being
misleading by reporting both views? If the media doesn't
present not-A, then is it censoring opposing views?
Actually, they published an article highlighting the different view of a single researcher (ok - he had a co-author in one paper). Note that the paper showing the decrease in violence makes no claims for the reasons behind it.
I find his argument compelling, but that doesn't mean the consensus is any different.
Agreed. Sad to see that it hasn't been upvoted much.
To me the article was a very clear warning on the horrific state of software security and that no one should be under any illusions of how little protection they have. My tangible take away is what you've mentioned: stop using C.
There was an interesting article arguing that motorcycle helmets make
motor cycling more dangerous. Sure, if you have an accident, a helmet
is a win. But risk compensation indicates you might be less likely to
have an accident when not wearing a helmet.