No. And, not everyone *should* pursue/receive "higher education".

Counter-Point: "Lower Education" ought to be improved to the point where children are only allowed to graduate once they demonstrate that they can read and do basic math. And teachers consistently failing to educate their students should be flogged in the public square.

Yep.

I'll take krellin one step further - lower, lower education must be improved and expanded - free public pre-school will make a bigger difference in the long run than will free higher education.

Agreed with krellin and 2WL...

I would contend that (and this is anecdotal; bear with me) the average high school grad from 60 years ago is smarter than the average junior college grad from today.

Almost nothing is free in this life. I don't think higher education can or should be entirely free.

That said, this article is spot-on about many of the problems facing American colleges and universities. This part is so accurate, I want to quote to make sure everyone sees it:

"What we still call "public universities" would be more accurately described as state-controlled private universities — corporate entities that think and behave like businesses. Where there once was a public mission to educate the republic's citizens, there is now the goal of satisfying the educational needs of the market, aided by PR departments that brand degrees as commodities and build consumer interest, always with an eye to the bottom line. And while public universities once sought to advance the industry of the state, as a whole, with an eye to the common good, shortfalls in public funding have led to universities treating their research capacity as a source of primary fund-raising, developing new technologies and products for the private sector, explicitly to raise the money they need to operate. Conflicts of interest are now commonplace."

Also bear in mind that universities may be obsolete in a decade or two. Universities (at least in America and much of the Western world) were originally conceived as either seminaries or as finishing schools for the children of the ultra-wealthy. The common man didn't get into college until after WWII.

Universities, in less than 100 years, have gone from teaching the classics to the wealthy to vocational schools for anyone with above-average intelligence and average wealth.

Once the market realizes that intelligence is not correlated with a college degree, college graduates will continue to lose value.

It will become obsolete just as a high school degree has, but no one calls high school irrelevant. It simply creates more school for jobs that really don't need more school.

High school was irrelevant for me. A colossal waste of four years. And yes, I applied myself.

Education should be free...from pre-K through college. In college though I would advocate it requires maintaining a minimum of a C in all classes or you have to pay for the class(es) you failed.

That said I would advocate a plan that Oregon is putting together (not sure if it will actually become law yet though). It is a pay it forward plan. Your education/room/board (to a lesser extent) is free...but you will be taxed at 2 or 3% of your pre-tax earnings after college for the next 30 years...no matter what job you have...go right back into the pool to pay for the next generation.

@ Gunfighter: "Once the market realizes that intelligence is not correlated with a college degree, college graduates will continue to lose value."

There is some truth in this. I went to University. I enjoyed it. I now have a good job which provides stimulating work and pays a good salary. Did my University degree help me get the job? Absolutely, because it ticked a box on a form. Do I actually *need* to have had University-level training to be able to do my job? Absolutely not.

Oh...and commence Krellin telling us why the average schmo should not get any education and going back to serfdom is better for America...

Two important misconceptions in this thread:

1. College is not and should not be vocational school. It does provide many of the important skills necessary to working in today's economy for many people, but, college is primarily about making a person prepared to be a meaningful participant in a free society. Consider the root of the most important disciplines in college, the liberal arts -- liberalis, that which pertains to freedom and benefits a freeman.

2. Universities are not just the stores where you buy knowledge; they're also the factories where knowledge gets made (to use an analogy). Virtually no four year college judges faculty solely based on teaching; service and scholarship are also important, in varying degrees based on the school. Similarly, the education you get at a big research university isn't just about being in a class-room. It's about being in an atmosphere where working experts are doing meaningful research.

I think people mistakenly believe you can quantify the value of college because they don't understand what higher education actually does and is supposed to do.

@Bengal - I'll try to go in to detail tonight if I think about it...but I'm curious as to why you addressed me specifically, when there are clearly others here that agree with me?

@Bengal -- before I answer you - let me ask you a question: Do you think that every single person has the exact same level of intellectual potential? Do you think at all that "personal drive" is a consideration in how far a person can go, should go, and should be supported by (the wealth of) others?

Free as in tax payed? Yes in Nordic countries, good luck trying to get that to USA.

In response to the OP, yes, definitely.

In regards to krel's latest message, that's what admission requirements are for.

they were having Big demonstrations here in Quebec 1 1/2 years ago... big

"Do you think that every single person has the exact same level of intellectual potential?"

If everyone has the exact same things in every way growing up, sure, and that's what I assume she is going to try to push for. But such programs are even beyond my idealistic spectrum. Near impossible.

@Ramsu - what latest message of mine? I'll guarantee you that Bengalgurl wants college for all regardless of ability or drive.

@krellin - at that point the ones actually wanting to get their intellect to a higher standard go to universities, the ones that don't care enter the work force.

@Bo - "exact same things growing up" has nothing to do with "intellectual potential".

To put this in more concrete terms - the "Left Brain / right Brain" quiz the other day...some of us could *only* see the dancer going clockwise. Some saw it counter. Some could make her switch hit.

Some people claim they are born heterosexual. Some claim they are born homosexual. Some switch it up.

Brains are not equal in all manner of things. To say that every human has the exact same intellection potential is liberal feel-good gobbledegook.

"at that point the ones actually wanting to get their intellect to a higher standard go to universities, the ones that don't care enter the work force. "

So because I choose to enter the workforce I should be denied the cash some other person gets because they choose to go to college on the government nickel for three years before failing out as a drunk?

Krellin...just because you are the loudest of the right wingers on this forum...

And no, not everyone is of the same mental capabilities. As Rasmu noted...that is what admission standards are for...plus I support making a requirement to maintain certain grades to stay in. Now...if someone of a lower mental stature can study 24/7 and manage to maintain that through hard work (as opposed to the folks who have a better ability to grasp and retain knowledge naturally) then they deserve to be in college.

The same, no, but similar, sure. Similar enough that such a goal of putting everyone through the exact same system is within the realm of possibility. It would require a hell of a strict bureaucracy but I'm saying it is possible.

I don't support that at all, by the way.

Just giving my 10 cents on "--should go, and should be supported by (the wealth of) others?". With admission requirements those who are deemed "unworthy" won't get to leech off of other's wealth (if the uni is "free"). And no, not all should go to uni. Not saying I agree or disagree with you, as (we are talking about American system?) I don't have expertise on that system.