Well, I think that there's no question that "free" results in the problems outlined by Old Dad and Bostonian-- and while we might (and have, as I recall wink ) debated the truth of the statement that SES is a good proxy for the cognitive ability distribution...

but what about making it affordable rather than a "windfall" is untenable?

It's still a personal sacrifice to attend, that way-- because I also agree that students who do best tend to be those who have skin in the game THEMSELVES, not just their parents' skin or that of the taxpayers. To a point, I mean-- it's also true that students who are on the verge of homelessness tend also to not do as well. smirk

Societally, we really need to do something about the fact that college is becoming unaffordable to everyone but the highest ~5% (who pay out of pocket and money isn't really a problem) and lowest ~20% (who get need-based aid which covers full costs) of households at all but a slim percentage of institutions. THAT is not helpful in terms of our future as a nation.

So what percentage of the population would we consider "college material" to start with? Is it 20%? 50%? 80% Some states now have a target which is more than 60% of the population, and I'm not sure that such a thing can truly be justified, myself.

What differentiates a "college education" from other kinds of education, anyway? Why isn't secondary education doing more to prepare students for work or further advanced study??

I have many questions-- but few answers.


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.