I see your point to an extent. It is absurd that some minority groups receive special government assistance to attend a University, and then they eventually drop out. Overall there is about a 50% graduation rate nation-wide, and it is logically lower for these disadvantaged groups receiving government assistance. The fact is most people are too dumb to graduate from college, and what the government does is a risky investment (what can I say about government?).

However, I strongly believe in meritocracy and equal opportunity. I think that if someone demonstrates merit, they should receive government assistance for their education. Maybe they should prove themselves at a two-year college first, but I fully support government assistance in education on condition that it is executed in a way to minimize risk and maximize returns.

That said, the education system is currently a mess. Prices are inflated because of government involvement, private interests and various other reasons, and it is hard to give an answer on what level government should be involved in providing assistance to students without a radical overhaul first.

I think we should focus more on making sure kids know the basics than worrying about them getting a 4yr degree. I blame bad parenting for the failure of the American education system. When your freshman class in HS is 700 students and the senior class is half that it's pretty obvious that something is wrong.

Question: How can you make College a right?  Now maybe things have change since I started but College and University programs generally have prerequisites to enroll, if you don't meet those requirements you don't get in.  So how do you make something a right for everyone when it demands a particular level of proficiency.

"If everyone gets a 2 year degree, then a 4 year degree, a 6 year degree, and a Doctorate are all reduced in value..."

If everyone got such degrees then yeah they might go down in value, but even if they give everyone the right to attend college they still can't give them the right to pass (similar to highschool).  So even if they do pass this idea (sincerely hope they don't) it's only a problem if everyone has the skill and intelligence to acquire a degree (which they don't) or if a push is made to lower the expectations for the programs, and if you've reached that point you really might want to consider starting a revolutiion.

"That many people seriously dropped out? I think 90% of people generally graduate High School. That said, the quality of education has dropped, has become more expensive, and parenting does not seem to value education."

Yes that many dropped out, and that was nearly 10 years ago. I hear things are worse now. It's sad, and a big part of it is that many times both parents work and don't spend time with their children. It's a snowball effect. Parents work more to make ends meet and help pay for their children's education, children see their parents less often and suffer at school, which means their kids need more help, and thus enroll them into more programs or pay more taxes to pay for such programs, which means their parents have to work more......

Geeze.  I need to get a two year degree today to get a higher wage job.  And even then the job says I must have 2 years prior experience in that job line.   So I'd waste 2 years of my life to get a job I can't get, because i don't have Prior job experience in the field i studied for.  This is no joke, this is how job searchs for large companies work.  The 2 years minimum education does not count towards prior job experience when looking for the job you educated yourself for.

Besides South Korea has already implemented this years ago.  You want college, you'll have to serve military time and earn the right, depending on which profession you really want to get into.

Yeah Zarf is right.

If taxes were severely down, then companies could not get people fast enough, they would offer to give a loan for schooling and promise to pay it off, plus pay bonuses in exchange for a few years work after the schooling...

It's been done in great economic times before.

The problem is the same that faces my business ventures. There is no pay off with the higher taxes for anything I do. So I choose a lower bracket where I actually keep more money in my pocket...

I thought it was lame that a company was looking for 2-4 prior years of experience in a cashier.

> Einstein wrote:

> As for the big Zarf post...

Wrong

How many students in the 1800's understood Geometry and Calculus?

How many students in 1950 knew about computers and software languages?<

Probably not much.  However, how much did you need to know at the time?  During the 50's, computers were still in their infancy.  It's insane to think I'm trying to train people in emerging market areas... the very definition of an emerging market means that's impossible.  The same goes for geometry and calculus in the 1800's as well (the vast majority of the population was still an agricultural society, and those who were in urban regions were generally in fields that didn't need to know geometry and calculus as much, such as factory workers). 

The basic knowledge required to even get your foot in the door in the world was limited.  If you're a kid whose family owns a small farm, you could, and would, learn all you need to know about your farming operation by your teenage years.  Hell, although this is going to sound harsh, underaged labor during the Industrial Age proves that many of the manufacturing jobs in the time can be done in childhood years.  So yes, at those times, education wasn't needed as much.

We're a new type of economy now.  Knowledge is the key to our society.  In addition to being needed in order to conduct specific occupations, a broad knowledge is needed in order to know and understand the future advances to come (remember, technology advances exponentially... the further we've advanced in knowledge, the faster we will move forward, requiring even more knowledge of what we already know in order to understand what will be introduced to us).

> My argument is we learn from multiple sources, and this learning is only limited by what we can see and envision. Take a child from a 3rd world hell hole, bring him to a house with a computer and internet connection, and that child is able to use the computer (not immediately, but over time).

The same is for all the desired 'advanced learning' your up wanting. We can learn it easily by the time we are 18, in Europe they push this all the time for it is the only way to make their college degrees worthwhile (since handed out like candy)

We can instead focus on leaving degrees as a way to set someone apart from others... <

1: Education is uniquely valuable due to verifiability.  Alternative methods don't have any way to ensure you actually know what's going on.  I can go on my own and read a bunch of randoms stuff about nanotechnology.  Does reading "Engines of Creation" and hearing a BBC news article mention something called "gray goo" mean I know everything there is to know?  How about getting different perspectives regarding an issue?  A person certainly couldn't be considered a good student of economics if they only read classical liberal authors.

This verification isn't really established in independent study, so businesses can't verify it.  While a person may be able to prove themselves through work (there's a couple cases of this), it's extremely difficult to get that first job in a field where employers have no verification of the process.

2: Some fields are just too serious to let independent study fly.  I wouldn't want an independent study doctor.  There's a reason why people are highly discouraged from representing themselves in court.  Hell, most fields would be too serious in their own way, whether it be safety concerns or simply abiding by laws about the field...

3: Education is key to guiding people to areas they may not even begin to read.

Ok I think I've come up with a solution to prevent the decline in value of College/University degrees and keep people who shouldn't be in College from taking up valuable space at educational institutions while still giving everyone the benefit of a post secondary education.

Upon graduating highschool every student is given a Bachelor of Arts Degree.  Since BA's are practically worthless as it is there is no decline in the value of a real education, and since a labotamized monkey can complete any of the fine programs that give you a BA there's no point in sending anyone capable of graduating highschool to College for it.

Everybody wins.

Firewing,

Empirically prove it.

US should look to countries that are more successfull, and as usual i want to point to scandinavia. All person are applicable for a student loan of up to 8 years here. All education in universities are free of charge (you pay about 100$ twice a year in registration fees). The loan is not to be repaid until you are finished with your degree, and no interests accrue in that period. Ofcourse this leads to some overeducation in useless fields such as arts, languages, social studies etc, but overall it secures a high level of education, making sure scandinavian workers are among the most productive in the world. From a society point of view, the key is really to offer equal terms on education for everyone, so that all the bright minds in society is taken advantage of.

Why are you putting poor and useless people into the same category?

Young people can be perfectly skilled and intelligent and still poor as hell, basicly becuse they have not had the time to accumulate a fortune