This seems to look at mostly marketable skills and increased income potential as the dominant factors. What about the value of an educated society? What about having an enriched understanding of...
This seems to look at mostly marketable skills and increased income potential as the dominant factors. What about the value of an educated society? What about having an enriched understanding of the world around us?
I think the thesis of the article relies on the fact that most students are not capable of university study in the first place. The article is more of a pushback against the idea that everyone...
I think the thesis of the article relies on the fact that most students are not capable of university study in the first place.
Students can and do pay tuition, kill a year, and flunk their finals. Any respectable verdict on the value of education must account for these academic bankruptcies.
The article is more of a pushback against the idea that everyone should get tertiary education.
The college-for-all mentality has fostered neglect of a realistic substitute: vocational education.
What about the value of an educated society?
In an educated society not everyone (or even a majority) has to have a terminal or tertiary degree. Merely that they should be well-educated enough to function in that society. Having tertiary education serve that role leaves it far too late.
What about having an enriched understanding of the world around us?
Should we be wasting university seats on those that are not particularly interested in the world around us? Surely those folks would be better served by finding a more appropriate avenue for their skills or interests. As such, I would argue that university would be better if it were less one-size-fits-all.
I guess I'm not sure I follow the premise of the article. I understand the points it's trying to make, but we don't currently have a system of "college for everyone". Is it's purpose to argue...
I guess I'm not sure I follow the premise of the article. I understand the points it's trying to make, but we don't currently have a system of "college for everyone". Is it's purpose to argue against the possibility of college for everyone? I wasn't under the impression that anything beyond just trying to make college affordable enough for everyone was on the table, politically or socially. If there was a push to make higher education a requirement, I could begin to see the premise of the article, but in today's context it seems like the author is arguing for the perpetuation of the current system while simultaneously denegrating it.
When politicians vow to send more Americans to college, I can’t help gasping, “Why? You want us to waste even more?”
I fail to see what's wrong with making college more accessible for those who want to further their education. There is a higher cost to society, maybe? But I would make the argument that it creates more worth to society. And that it does so in ways not quantifiable with accounting.
In an educated society not everyone (or even a majority) has to have a terminal or tertiary degree.
College isn't for everyone. It definitely wasn't for me. But again, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that someone is threatening to drag uneducated folks by the ear into a class and sit them down in shame until they damn well learn something.
most students are not capable of university study in the first place
I've helped in classes, I've graded papers, I've seen for myself the levels of ineptitude some of the students show. And I also know that there is a difference between motivation, hormonal distraction common in that age group, and lack of previous experience. Most of them, by far, are plagued by the latter. There was a very noticeable increase in this factor in the years following No Child Left Behind.
This isn't just about these kids' writing skills. It's about their ability to think critically, their reading comprehension, and by extension their ability to retain information. These are fundamentals that are learned through practice. Some people get that practice early on and are apparent "naturals", but these are exceptional. By and large, people gain these abilities by learning the methods and putting them to use.
This is really the sort of thing I think about when I think of an "educated society". Not about high school diplomas, or some notion that everyone needs to know calculus just because. It's the notion that there is a baseline education level commonly accepted for a given society, and that given society's abilities increase proportionately to increases in that baseline.
I know I didn't respond to everything, but it's getting late for me and I've probably gone on long enough on this topic for now. I appreciate the discussion though.
Edit: couple edits for clarity.
Edit2: removed personal references that didn't add much value
At least where I taught in the U.S. and where I'm teaching now (not in the U.S.) there is a strong desire to push everyone towards a university pathway, despite many not being particularly capable...
but we don't currently have a system of "college for everyone".
At least where I taught in the U.S. and where I'm teaching now (not in the U.S.) there is a strong desire to push everyone towards a university pathway, despite many not being particularly capable of it.
I fail to see what's wrong with making college more accessible for those who want to further their education
I think the author is trying to make the argument that college is all well and good for the people that want to do it, the waste is coming from the folks that are pushed into college as the only way they can "succeed" and then don't. I don't think that the author is arguing that college should be less accessible, rather that the standards of education have been whittled down so far, that some institutions accept almost anyone and have, what amounts to, a B average for students, making the whole enterprise not as useful as society hopes it will be.
But again, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that someone is threatening to drag uneducated folks by the ear into a class and sit them down in shame until they damn well learn something.
That's what they do here in my current country and it doesn't work too well; they will "educate" anyone with a pulse and some cash. Though, when I taught in the U.S., college did seem like the only real choice given to the students and from my understanding it hasn't changed much since I've been out of the country, but it was a very rural area with not many options. So, it could vary based on region.
And I also know that there is a difference between motivation, hormonal distraction common in that age group, and lack of previous experience. Most of them, by far, are plagued by the latter.
Definitely, I do feel like secondary schools, in general, focus too much on their standardised testing in lieu of actually teaching the students useful skills. And any skill that is not taught gets pushed back until their professors have to waste time teaching fundamental skills that the students should already have had taught to them before entering college.
This is really the sort of thing I think about when I think of an "educated society". Not about high school diplomas ... It's the notion that there is a baseline education level commonly accepted for a given society and that given society's abilities increase proportionately to increases in that baseline.
While I agree that there should be a baseline for an educated society, where would that baseline be if not high school? If everyone goes through those 13 years of education they should have about the same baseline of knowledge in certain subjects. It just seems that the baseline is getting more filled with test preparation than anything particularly useful.
I know I didn't respond to everything, but it's getting late for me and I've probably gone on long enough on this topic for now. I appreciate the discussion though.
Alright, cheers. I should probably get some sleep, too.
I think Caplan (briefly) covers the intangible value of education in these paragraphs: Earlier in the article he provides evidence for these beliefs: I think Caplan's point is that these students...
I think Caplan (briefly) covers the intangible value of education in these paragraphs:
Economists’ educational bean counting can come off as annoyingly narrow. Non-economists—also known as normal human beings—lean holistic: We can’t measure education’s social benefits solely with test scores or salary premiums. Instead we must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in—an educated one or an ignorant one?
Normal human beings make a solid point: We can and should investigate education’s broad social implications. When humanists consider my calculations of education’s returns, they assume I’m being a typical cynical economist, oblivious to the ideals so many educators hold dear. I am an economist and I am a cynic, but I’m not a typical cynical economist. I’m a cynical idealist. I embrace the ideal of transformative education. I believe wholeheartedly in the life of the mind. What I’m cynical about is people.
Earlier in the article he provides evidence for these beliefs:
Of course, college students aren’t supposed to just download facts; they’re supposed to learn how to think in real life. How do they fare on this count? The most focused study of education’s effect on applied reasoning, conducted by Harvard’s David Perkins in the mid-1980s, assessed students’ oral responses to questions designed to measure informal reasoning, such as “Would a proposed law in Massachusetts requiring a five-cent deposit on bottles and cans significantly reduce litter?” The benefit of college seemed to be zero: Fourth-year students did no better than first-year students.
Other evidence is equally discouraging. One researcher tested Arizona State University students’ ability to “apply statistical and methodological concepts to reasoning about everyday-life events.” In the researcher’s words:
"Of the several hundred students tested, many of whom had taken more than six years of laboratory science … and advanced mathematics through calculus, almost none demonstrated even a semblance of acceptable methodological reasoning."
I think Caplan's point is that these students are going through college purely with the aim of attaining a degree so that they can seek gainful employment, not with the intention of becoming more educated and worldly citizens.
They're emerging on the other side of university with a diploma in hand, but otherwise completely unchanged. (Edit: according to his sources, anyway, which aren't exactly numerous)
Personally, I think I fall somewhere between your perspective and Caplan's. I support the push to make university education more affordable (perhaps even ultimately free) in my own country for those who seek the "ideal of transformative education" or greater knowledge (e.g. in engineering, history, math, psychology, etc.) which I think generally aligns with your opinion.
But I also agree with Caplan that we should be concerned about employers' increasing use of university as an exorbitantly expensive benchmark for employ-ability. There has to be a cheaper way for people who genuinely have no interest in higher education (beyond the degree at the end of it) to demonstrate their value as potential employees rather than indirectly forcing them to attend university just so they can land a well-paying job.
Edit: hope this doesn't come off as confrontational! I think we largely agree, I just wanted to offer my take on Caplan's article :)
This is a very one-sided opinion. Caplan is an economics professor, self-described libertarian and an adjunct scholar of the Cato institute which explains his standpoint. He only looks at one...
This is a very one-sided opinion. Caplan is an economics professor, self-described libertarian and an adjunct scholar of the Cato institute which explains his standpoint. He only looks at one aspect, economic worth. He laments teaching for the tests and summer learning loss. But his ideas of a worthy education lead to this.
First and foremost: From kindergarten on, students spend thousands of hours studying subjects irrelevant to the modern labor market.
I abhor this view. Why must everything serve the "market"? Vincent van Gogh was an economic loser, unemployable, and died pennyless at a young age. Following Caplans logic he was an economically worthless person.
Why do English classes focus on literature and poetry instead of business and technical writing?
Business and technical writing require understanding the language and culture. Literature and poetry teach those. They also help developing good writing style.
Why do advanced-math classes bother with proofs almost no student can follow?
It's conjecture that almost no student can follow. I was taught mathematical proofs from eight grade onwards and pretty much all of my classmates could follow and produce proofs during tests. It's also quite concerning, that a professor of economics, a science based heavily on mathematics, thinks proofs are superfluous.
When will the typical student use history?
Every single day when they try to understand why the world is the way it is, what lead to the current situation and what may come of it.
I could go on and on about Caplan's myopic and, in my opinion, downright wrong viewpoint, but I'm tired.
I think you might have not completed the full article - these were not things the author was arguing for but used as reference for how to find value in learning.
I think you might have not completed the full article - these were not things the author was arguing for but used as reference for how to find value in learning.
I am always a bit torn on this. I am an eng too, so my education very directly affected my usable skills. However, there are a lot of softer programs that are hobbies at the low level, but not at...
The problem, I think, lies more in that people take education's in things that are hobbies and not marketable skills. And that people who have no place in higher education still do it.
I am always a bit torn on this. I am an eng too, so my education very directly affected my usable skills. However, there are a lot of softer programs that are hobbies at the low level, but not at the professional level. I'm thinking of social, arts, language.
I think the issue isn't people going into these fields, it's that these fields now required degrees or diplomas that don't have a more direct benefit in the field itself. Instead they should probably be trade programs, which open up a world of other issues.
The U.S. in particular has a political post hoc, ergo prompter hoc problem - having a college degree is correlated with better life outcomes (income, family stability, proneness to criminal...
The U.S. in particular has a political post hoc, ergo prompter hoc problem - having a college degree is correlated with better life outcomes (income, family stability, proneness to criminal activity, etc.), therefore everyone should go to college. We're missing all the other earlier and less expensive interventions that that are correlated with improved individual lives and national productivity.
Also, the "college premium" represents an excessive wage premium for professional and administrative/executive careers over trades and services, caused by the decline of unionized labor. [This has led to the impoverishment of college educated post-graduate instructors who are actually doing the majority of productive teaching work in universities.]
Furthermore, there's a perverse incentive here - we're letting motivated university institutions and foundations guide policies which direct more resources and revenue to their control. Bad actors like the for-profit colleges and technical institutes (with plenty of political bribery involved) have taken the money and run, while leaving graduates with little or nothing for their time and investment.
Given Caplan's own motivated reasoning (the Cato Institute's philosophy can be read as, ""we should just stop funding college, because government intervention is hostile to liberty and doesn't work"), the solution isn't to stop funding college for every applicant (it's already underfunded to the point that students are essentially debt slaves). Rather, we need to provide better public primary and secondary education, as well as better guidance at every level of schooling to help students foster their own talents and direction, without overly propagandizing the value of professional and academic careers.
Everyone misses the point here. College is extremely expensive. Someone should only go through an extremely expensive process if it is economically worthwhile--there are exceptions but anyone who...
Everyone misses the point here. College is extremely expensive. Someone should only go through an extremely expensive process if it is economically worthwhile--there are exceptions but anyone who has enough money not to worry about a sum like that doesn't need to be considered by public policy.
Everyone is always so attached to COLLEGE rather than EDUCATION. I am all for people receiving an education which is even content-identical to a college education--but I don't want everyone to do it at a college.
The very best thing we can do to help people is not to pay for their college. That is such a stupid use of money. The very best thing we can do is pay some money to develop better techniques and technologies that make education EASIER and CHEAPER for people to pursue.
I want to see state money put to use making open-license textbooks. Give Rice University another grant for them to update OpenStax and expand their offerings. I want to see grants to universities (and public schools!) who transition to free books. I want to see expansion of CLEP and CLEP-like programs, mandated in all universities (if you can figure out a way to do that without basically subsidizing college board). I want to see grants for high schools that offer dual credit courses. I want to see a push for every single paper funded by public money made open to the public. Every single one. I want to see ACTUAL mental health professionals hired at high schools around the country to help kids actually be able to survive school and get to college in the first place.
I want to see private money spent on the MOOC industry and expanding it. I want to see more websites like Lynda and Skillshare and Coursera. I want to see Khan Academy expand. I want to see more educational content on YouTube. I want to see websites that provide a template of resources that a student can follow right through, in a guided fashion, to learn in order just like they might at a university. I want to see more open-license books at a deep level, at the 300 and 400-levels.
It has a much bigger return on investment than just buying college degrees for people. That degree helps educate one person. But investing in lowering the economic barriers to education? Permanently? Once a textbook is written and uploaded, it's out there. People can read it for free and it costs almost nothing to anyone. That is a permanent upgrade to our educational abilities as a society. And it has effects well outside America.
The UK, Australia, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Jamaica, and probably dozens of other countries I'm not thinking of all have tons of English speakers. Millions and millions of first-language speakers. That's not considering how many people learn English at a very high level as a second language. These books can be used by ALL of those people.
Once we have spent some money on making education easier, on lowering the costs to students and to universities, then it makes sense to start paying for people to go.
But we HAVE to start cutting the hobbyists out of college. Not by kicking them out. But by giving them viable alternatives for learning what they want to learn, that have a fraction of the cost. It is an outrage that someone should have to spend thousands on a philosophy or art degree that they will not get to use in the market--they should have cheaper options. And by paying to give those people cheaper options, we will avoid having to pay for them to use the expensive and inefficient options in the future.
I hope to see, by the end of my lifetime, that it is not only possible but EASY for someone to receive the equivalent of 2 years of gen eds, outside of any traditional college ecosystem and for less than $500 disregarding inflation, assuming they have internet/electricity already, and including the cost of a computer. No textbook costs. No tuition. "Lab" classes could be done in VR or simulated closely by watching videos. The $500 would go towards any "premium" classes that someone wanted to take at a real university or get certificates for, and for basic equipment and supplies like calculators, pen and paper for notes, a printer if needed, and so on.
That's the way forward. Embrace technology, and speed it up. Cut through the public's desire for short-term gains and follow the long-term strategy. That is the purpose of a government--not pandering to people who are uneducated precisely because the government has traditionally not given a shit to do so.
This seems to look at mostly marketable skills and increased income potential as the dominant factors. What about the value of an educated society? What about having an enriched understanding of the world around us?
I think the thesis of the article relies on the fact that most students are not capable of university study in the first place.
The article is more of a pushback against the idea that everyone should get tertiary education.
In an educated society not everyone (or even a majority) has to have a terminal or tertiary degree. Merely that they should be well-educated enough to function in that society. Having tertiary education serve that role leaves it far too late.
Should we be wasting university seats on those that are not particularly interested in the world around us? Surely those folks would be better served by finding a more appropriate avenue for their skills or interests. As such, I would argue that university would be better if it were less one-size-fits-all.
I guess I'm not sure I follow the premise of the article. I understand the points it's trying to make, but we don't currently have a system of "college for everyone". Is it's purpose to argue against the possibility of college for everyone? I wasn't under the impression that anything beyond just trying to make college affordable enough for everyone was on the table, politically or socially. If there was a push to make higher education a requirement, I could begin to see the premise of the article, but in today's context it seems like the author is arguing for the perpetuation of the current system while simultaneously denegrating it.
I fail to see what's wrong with making college more accessible for those who want to further their education. There is a higher cost to society, maybe? But I would make the argument that it creates more worth to society. And that it does so in ways not quantifiable with accounting.
College isn't for everyone. It definitely wasn't for me. But again, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that someone is threatening to drag uneducated folks by the ear into a class and sit them down in shame until they damn well learn something.
I've helped in classes, I've graded papers, I've seen for myself the levels of ineptitude some of the students show. And I also know that there is a difference between motivation, hormonal distraction common in that age group, and lack of previous experience. Most of them, by far, are plagued by the latter. There was a very noticeable increase in this factor in the years following No Child Left Behind.
This isn't just about these kids' writing skills. It's about their ability to think critically, their reading comprehension, and by extension their ability to retain information. These are fundamentals that are learned through practice. Some people get that practice early on and are apparent "naturals", but these are exceptional. By and large, people gain these abilities by learning the methods and putting them to use.
This is really the sort of thing I think about when I think of an "educated society". Not about high school diplomas, or some notion that everyone needs to know calculus just because. It's the notion that there is a baseline education level commonly accepted for a given society, and that given society's abilities increase proportionately to increases in that baseline.
I know I didn't respond to everything, but it's getting late for me and I've probably gone on long enough on this topic for now. I appreciate the discussion though.
Edit: couple edits for clarity.
Edit2: removed personal references that didn't add much value
At least where I taught in the U.S. and where I'm teaching now (not in the U.S.) there is a strong desire to push everyone towards a university pathway, despite many not being particularly capable of it.
I think the author is trying to make the argument that college is all well and good for the people that want to do it, the waste is coming from the folks that are pushed into college as the only way they can "succeed" and then don't. I don't think that the author is arguing that college should be less accessible, rather that the standards of education have been whittled down so far, that some institutions accept almost anyone and have, what amounts to, a B average for students, making the whole enterprise not as useful as society hopes it will be.
That's what they do here in my current country and it doesn't work too well; they will "educate" anyone with a pulse and some cash. Though, when I taught in the U.S., college did seem like the only real choice given to the students and from my understanding it hasn't changed much since I've been out of the country, but it was a very rural area with not many options. So, it could vary based on region.
Definitely, I do feel like secondary schools, in general, focus too much on their standardised testing in lieu of actually teaching the students useful skills. And any skill that is not taught gets pushed back until their professors have to waste time teaching fundamental skills that the students should already have had taught to them before entering college.
While I agree that there should be a baseline for an educated society, where would that baseline be if not high school? If everyone goes through those 13 years of education they should have about the same baseline of knowledge in certain subjects. It just seems that the baseline is getting more filled with test preparation than anything particularly useful.
Alright, cheers. I should probably get some sleep, too.
I think Caplan (briefly) covers the intangible value of education in these paragraphs:
Earlier in the article he provides evidence for these beliefs:
I think Caplan's point is that these students are going through college purely with the aim of attaining a degree so that they can seek gainful employment, not with the intention of becoming more educated and worldly citizens.
They're emerging on the other side of university with a diploma in hand, but otherwise completely unchanged. (Edit: according to his sources, anyway, which aren't exactly numerous)
Personally, I think I fall somewhere between your perspective and Caplan's. I support the push to make university education more affordable (perhaps even ultimately free) in my own country for those who seek the "ideal of transformative education" or greater knowledge (e.g. in engineering, history, math, psychology, etc.) which I think generally aligns with your opinion.
But I also agree with Caplan that we should be concerned about employers' increasing use of university as an exorbitantly expensive benchmark for employ-ability. There has to be a cheaper way for people who genuinely have no interest in higher education (beyond the degree at the end of it) to demonstrate their value as potential employees rather than indirectly forcing them to attend university just so they can land a well-paying job.
Edit: hope this doesn't come off as confrontational! I think we largely agree, I just wanted to offer my take on Caplan's article :)
This is a very one-sided opinion. Caplan is an economics professor, self-described libertarian and an adjunct scholar of the Cato institute which explains his standpoint. He only looks at one aspect, economic worth. He laments teaching for the tests and summer learning loss. But his ideas of a worthy education lead to this.
I abhor this view. Why must everything serve the "market"? Vincent van Gogh was an economic loser, unemployable, and died pennyless at a young age. Following Caplans logic he was an economically worthless person.
Business and technical writing require understanding the language and culture. Literature and poetry teach those. They also help developing good writing style.
It's conjecture that almost no student can follow. I was taught mathematical proofs from eight grade onwards and pretty much all of my classmates could follow and produce proofs during tests. It's also quite concerning, that a professor of economics, a science based heavily on mathematics, thinks proofs are superfluous.
Every single day when they try to understand why the world is the way it is, what lead to the current situation and what may come of it.
I could go on and on about Caplan's myopic and, in my opinion, downright wrong viewpoint, but I'm tired.
Please do! There should always be push back against the idea that things only have value if you can assign a dollar amount to it.
I think you might have not completed the full article - these were not things the author was arguing for but used as reference for how to find value in learning.
I am always a bit torn on this. I am an eng too, so my education very directly affected my usable skills. However, there are a lot of softer programs that are hobbies at the low level, but not at the professional level. I'm thinking of social, arts, language.
I think the issue isn't people going into these fields, it's that these fields now required degrees or diplomas that don't have a more direct benefit in the field itself. Instead they should probably be trade programs, which open up a world of other issues.
The U.S. in particular has a political post hoc, ergo prompter hoc problem - having a college degree is correlated with better life outcomes (income, family stability, proneness to criminal activity, etc.), therefore everyone should go to college. We're missing all the other earlier and less expensive interventions that that are correlated with improved individual lives and national productivity.
Also, the "college premium" represents an excessive wage premium for professional and administrative/executive careers over trades and services, caused by the decline of unionized labor. [This has led to the impoverishment of college educated post-graduate instructors who are actually doing the majority of productive teaching work in universities.]
Furthermore, there's a perverse incentive here - we're letting motivated university institutions and foundations guide policies which direct more resources and revenue to their control. Bad actors like the for-profit colleges and technical institutes (with plenty of political bribery involved) have taken the money and run, while leaving graduates with little or nothing for their time and investment.
Given Caplan's own motivated reasoning (the Cato Institute's philosophy can be read as, ""we should just stop funding college, because government intervention is hostile to liberty and doesn't work"), the solution isn't to stop funding college for every applicant (it's already underfunded to the point that students are essentially debt slaves). Rather, we need to provide better public primary and secondary education, as well as better guidance at every level of schooling to help students foster their own talents and direction, without overly propagandizing the value of professional and academic careers.
Everyone misses the point here. College is extremely expensive. Someone should only go through an extremely expensive process if it is economically worthwhile--there are exceptions but anyone who has enough money not to worry about a sum like that doesn't need to be considered by public policy.
Everyone is always so attached to COLLEGE rather than EDUCATION. I am all for people receiving an education which is even content-identical to a college education--but I don't want everyone to do it at a college.
The very best thing we can do to help people is not to pay for their college. That is such a stupid use of money. The very best thing we can do is pay some money to develop better techniques and technologies that make education EASIER and CHEAPER for people to pursue.
I want to see state money put to use making open-license textbooks. Give Rice University another grant for them to update OpenStax and expand their offerings. I want to see grants to universities (and public schools!) who transition to free books. I want to see expansion of CLEP and CLEP-like programs, mandated in all universities (if you can figure out a way to do that without basically subsidizing college board). I want to see grants for high schools that offer dual credit courses. I want to see a push for every single paper funded by public money made open to the public. Every single one. I want to see ACTUAL mental health professionals hired at high schools around the country to help kids actually be able to survive school and get to college in the first place.
I want to see private money spent on the MOOC industry and expanding it. I want to see more websites like Lynda and Skillshare and Coursera. I want to see Khan Academy expand. I want to see more educational content on YouTube. I want to see websites that provide a template of resources that a student can follow right through, in a guided fashion, to learn in order just like they might at a university. I want to see more open-license books at a deep level, at the 300 and 400-levels.
It has a much bigger return on investment than just buying college degrees for people. That degree helps educate one person. But investing in lowering the economic barriers to education? Permanently? Once a textbook is written and uploaded, it's out there. People can read it for free and it costs almost nothing to anyone. That is a permanent upgrade to our educational abilities as a society. And it has effects well outside America.
The UK, Australia, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Jamaica, and probably dozens of other countries I'm not thinking of all have tons of English speakers. Millions and millions of first-language speakers. That's not considering how many people learn English at a very high level as a second language. These books can be used by ALL of those people.
Once we have spent some money on making education easier, on lowering the costs to students and to universities, then it makes sense to start paying for people to go.
But we HAVE to start cutting the hobbyists out of college. Not by kicking them out. But by giving them viable alternatives for learning what they want to learn, that have a fraction of the cost. It is an outrage that someone should have to spend thousands on a philosophy or art degree that they will not get to use in the market--they should have cheaper options. And by paying to give those people cheaper options, we will avoid having to pay for them to use the expensive and inefficient options in the future.
I hope to see, by the end of my lifetime, that it is not only possible but EASY for someone to receive the equivalent of 2 years of gen eds, outside of any traditional college ecosystem and for less than $500 disregarding inflation, assuming they have internet/electricity already, and including the cost of a computer. No textbook costs. No tuition. "Lab" classes could be done in VR or simulated closely by watching videos. The $500 would go towards any "premium" classes that someone wanted to take at a real university or get certificates for, and for basic equipment and supplies like calculators, pen and paper for notes, a printer if needed, and so on.
That's the way forward. Embrace technology, and speed it up. Cut through the public's desire for short-term gains and follow the long-term strategy. That is the purpose of a government--not pandering to people who are uneducated precisely because the government has traditionally not given a shit to do so.