[caseysoftware]

"Make it free" doesn't work when costs are out of control, regardless of the product, service, or industry.

An idea solution would more closely connect the buyer (student) to the consequences of their decision (both good and bad) while holding the seller (university) accountable for the quality of their product/service.

Until you can address all three, there's no solution just pandering after the fact.

> I considered the alternative in my second paragraph. You didn't respond to that point. How do you reconcile meritocracy with pay-to-play?

Because it wasn't worth responding to. Most meritocracy has pieces that are pay to play. Maybe it shouldn't but acting like it doesn't is foolish.

The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?

[alistairSH]

The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?

From a policy perspective, the question we should be asking is "how much does society benefit from college graduates?"

If there's a net benefit to people attending college, then society should be funding it, as it's essentially "making a profit".

I also agree that changes to the funding model need to address the spiraling costs of attendance. But, I also believe much of that spiral is due to the funding model (near unlimited government backing and lack of dischargeability for the borrower).

[lapcat]

> Because it wasn't worth responding to.

If you're just going to be dismissive, why did you respond at all?

> Most meritocracy has pieces that are pay to play

Which other "pieces" come with a lifetime of debt?

> The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?

Why is that more interesting?

[caseysoftware]

> If you're just going to be dismissive, why did you respond at all?

I didn't initially and chose to focus on the productive bit. You demanded a response.