I too took a non-traditional route. My employer paid for my degrees, and they reaped the benefits of that. The whole notion of "you have to go to college right after high school" is rather ignorant.
This is not to say that college is causal here, but it is a variable and at least one you can control.
The problem is that everyone wants to go to a nice college and live the dream. Nobody wants to do 2 years free at community college and then transfer to a state school even though the outcomes would be nearly identical as if you went to some high-end private university (ivy not withstanding). This is an entitlement problem, and the universities are exploiting it.
> it is a variable and at least one you can control.
But that's the thing. You can't control it. Colleges aren't admitting you with that crippling mental disability you were born with no matter how much you wish it to be so. You aren't likely even going to be allowed to graduate from high school. And guess what? The economy won't put much value on you either for the same reason the schools don't want you.
Your idea that the kid with Down Syndrome will see his symptoms go away if only he manages to attain a college degree as poorly analyzed data suggests is a fun idea, and one I wish were true, but that's not how things actually work in the real world.
Only if you are already economically valuable might colleges accept you into their hallowed halls. Of course, that questions: If you are already economically valuable, why not delay college until you have reaped some economic rewards to pay for it? It is not like there is a rush for a college education. I expect there will still be colleges to attend when you are in retirement.
Of course, when you get right down to why people attend college, it is for the curated dating pool (even if they don't like to admit it). Yes, there is somewhat of a rush to find dating partners while you are still comparatively young. For sure, dating in your 80s isn't quite the same. But then that questions why dating requires such a high cost? Surely there is a better, more cost-reasonable, way?
Maybe I didn't do a good job of stating my point, and my example reenforces that college is ultimately a good thing. So please let me clarify:
The point was that everyone graduating high school in the 1990s and onward were constantly fed this idea that you graduate high school and then do your four years (even if that requires racking up a ton of debt) that you'd live a successful, productive life making enough money to at least be comfortable. The averages are proving this to not only to not be true, but that debt incursion is causing major drags on the entire economy.
Incursion of debt without a plan of payoff is ignorant. No bank would ever lend money to you for a business if your business plan didn't contain sufficient enough detail of how you planned to pay them back. Working while in school (and thereby avoiding debt) is IMO the best solution to those who want to attend college but may not be able to get full-ride scholarships and aren't financially well off.
To be fair, many (if not most) university systems do not make this easy. Night classes are generally hard to come by, there are tons of fees that non-traditional students don't see benefit from, many coursework plans are so rigid to the point where pre-reqs will derail schooling for semesters at a time, etc.
A lot of neurological development happens between 18 and 24, college is not just a practical skills education, it's also a space you're allowed to practice being an adult while that neurological development happens.
Ideally everyone can go to college and the costs are manageable and the counselors there help people understand what their degrees might be worth to them at the end of the process.
> A lot of neurological development happens between 18 and 24, college is not just a practical skills education, it's also a space you're allowed to practice being an adult while that neurological development happens.
If true, asking people to make potentially catastrophic life-changing decisions prior to then is risky for them and predatory by the person asking.
And if we follow that reasoning, we have to reconsider many things we allow/ask sub-24yo's to do and provide them a way to prove they are able to make those decisions.
That hardly seems like an ideal. Many people, perhaps the majority, are simply not suited to college.
While I am aware of the research on neurological development I think some people are too ready to use that as an excuse for immature behavior. When Horatio Nelson was 19 he was already the commanding officer of a warship, leading men in combat and doing a pretty good job of it. And I don't believe he was really unique; many young people are capable of taking on adult responsibilities when necessity thrusts it upon them.
I mean, I'm out here saying college should be a public service that everyone gets and we all fund because it's a net good for our society for young adults. I don't think it should require debt at all.
> it's a net good for our society for young adults.
Nearly 70% of Canadians 24-35 have a post-secondary degree and is considered the most educated nation in the world. For comparison, only 51% of Americans and 37% of Germans have the same. The trend is the same when expanding out to the entire population.
What net good is found in Canada that is not seen in the USA and especially Germany to the same degree? It is not economic. Canada is quite poor, comparatively. It does not appear to be political. Germany is considered much more democratic than Canada (Canada beats the USA, granted). It does not appear to be in, say, happiness. Canada is unhappier than both Germany and the USA. Cost of living? Haha. Don't even try to talk to Canadians about that. You will make them cry. Maybe health? Canada does seem to be more healthy than the other two. But is still not as healthy as many other countries that are less educated, so I'm not sure we're actually seeing any correlation there. I'm not sure there is correlation, let alone causation, in any of these cases.
So what is it? Let's say we implement your plan. What measures are we using to ensure that it is and remains a net good?
> I don't think it should require debt at all.
Indeed, it shouldn't. The idea that it requires debt is built on a false premise.
The utility of college can only be useful after you have established a clear goal and need to engage in research to achieve your desired result. Young people who haven't yet contributed anything to the world lack that. Interestingly, it turns out that those who are truly ready for college and those who have already saved up for college by way of productive efforts on the way to finding a meaningful goal are the same set. The reality is that debt isn't needed if college is to be used for the role it claims to serve.
But, let's be honest, the only reason most people go to college is to access a curated dating market. Here, there is something to be said about the people being 18 years old and not 45. Now, you might argue that should produce a net good (more children being born), but the data shows that is not the case[1]. In fact, once people get the uninhibited college sex (with protection) out of their system, it seems they are less likely to have children.
[1] In fairness, there is the perspective that fewer children born domestically with more immigration is the greater good. But at the same time these nations will only accept top immigrants, not any old random Joe who wants to emigrate, which is quite bad for the countries losing those people. As such, I am not sure this take is being honest.
To be fair, I genuinely don't know how to measure "is capable independent without trauma". I was independent at around 14, but that was due to having to survive trauma. My path was awful and I carry scars. I'd love for kids to have a space where they learn to work, pay rent and bills, navigate social environments, balance their budgets, learn and meet obligations, etc. But I don't know how to measure it.
As a counterpoint to this, I went to college in my late twenties. I did this specifically to resolve some gaps in my knowledge regarding higher mathematics instead of getting a degree. It's certainly possible to self-study math, but the classes covered exactly what I needed at the time.
Anyway, what I noticed is that most of my classmates simply weren't equipped to study or pass these classes. It wasn't for a lack of skills: they went through the motions as they were taught. It was a problem of maturity. I was approaching these classes as a way to gain valuable knowledge. To them, it was a means to a nebulous end (obtain a degree). Their maladaptive behaviors, which got them through public school, were simply not scaling for harder subjects.
I got As, often perfect scores, on my tests. This is because I studied and did the work. I wanted to be there, and I wanted to excel, because I needed that knowledge. Credit hours were some silly "degree points" metric I didn't care about, because I didn't really care about getting a degree at that point. I was paying out of pocket to be there. I wasn't racking up debt or burning through a grant / scholarship to be there.
Empathy is another thing that gets stronger as our prefrontal cortexes mature. Our mirror neurons deepen as we get older. So, I took pity on these folks. It wasn't really their fault. From my perspective, they went to college too soon. They should've taken a decade off to grow up, like I did. I organized study groups for these classes. To sweeten the pot, I made it a rule that for every 30 minutes of hard work doing board problems, there was 30 minutes of socializing and venting. Then, rule 2 was that everyone did board problems, and new people were up first. I won't go into more detail, but everyone who attended the study groups started getting As on their tests. The results and the social aspect made these study groups popular. Pretty soon, most of the class was in these groups, and that made it very easy to work with the professor to get classroom time instead of schlepping to the college library or the public library for a meeting room.
Although these classes were requirements for engineers and medical doctors, most of the folks who I stayed in contact with eventually changed majors / declared different majors, dropped out, or got unrelated jobs after graduation. I also saw this as a problem with maturity. I knew exactly what I was doing when I started these classes. These kids were burning money to try to figure out what they wanted to do with their lives. Eh... that's a broken system. Kids shouldn't be saddled with debt nor should they have to make a decision about what they want to do for the rest of their lives before their prefrontal contexes have finished forming.
In general, the lifetime earnings for a college graduate exceed those of a non-graduate by in excess of $1,000,000. There is nothing "ignorant" about choosing college.
The debt situation isn't sustainable. But "go to college to earn more money" continues to be largely true.
Once again: Counting MDs, computer scientists and religious science graduates as a combined group opposed to a "no college" group that consists of electricians and McDonalds toilet cleaners is extremely misleading, makes absolutely no sense and quite frankly, dumb.
One needs to discern between mostly useless degrees and degrees that almost guarantee a life in the upper class.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/02/11/the-ris...
This is not to say that college is causal here, but it is a variable and at least one you can control.
The problem is that everyone wants to go to a nice college and live the dream. Nobody wants to do 2 years free at community college and then transfer to a state school even though the outcomes would be nearly identical as if you went to some high-end private university (ivy not withstanding). This is an entitlement problem, and the universities are exploiting it.