Are you out of your mind or just very naive? Elite schools lead to the most expensive colleges on earth not the other way around. Or maybe you haves vested interest in one of these schools?
I think the proper word you are grasping for here is "rite of passage". In the historic upper middle class homes, university / college was a rite of passage. Nowadays ones rite of passage is any number of things, none of which involve reading Shakespeare. The pace of the increased cost of education and healthcare defies all logic and only rich foreigners now choose to partake in what is left of the US upper middle class status quo. You have to be a real individual to either see that reality, or to sidestep it altogether. But hey, if you have a free scholarship, backpacking around the world ain't cheap, and its ubiquitous now, phi beta kappa ain't so bad.
<i>Won't the free market cause demand to drop once word gets around that ending up paying 1400 a month in increasing debt to earn 650 dollars a month fetching coffee is a bad idea?</i> I think part of the problem is that paying for college and moving into the work force is typically a 'once in a lifetime' event. Much of the selective nature of the free market relies on the ability of consumers to purchase a product/service, evaluate it, and then make their future decisions based upon their experiences. Shoddy products, for example, will be avoided in the future by consumers, which eventually leads to their disappearance from the market. But since the usefulness and value of a college education isn't readily apparent until after the degree is obtained, this mechanism doesn't exist. For instance, people will certainly realize after the fact that majoring in art history was a total waste of their time and money, but since they won't be attending college again, there is no way for the market to reflect this discontent other than hearsay. Basically, the normal mechanism of "voting with your dollars" used in all other areas of the market doesn't apply in the case of a college education.
I stand by my original comments that the top tier liberal arts colleges are functionally social networks more than true educational institutions. Parents foot the bill for these schools so that their kids can go work on Wall Street or have a better shot with some other vested industry that recruits these kids and has a strong alumni network. The whole problem is that the vast majority of liberal arts colleges price themselves as if they are all Princeton or Yale or Dartmouth, while in reality they might be a third or fourth tier school that simply can't deliver on those promises in this economy.
Agreed. But to be free to think and more importantly act in this way requires money or a financial safety net. The point is valid and is one reaon why I am in favour of increased tuition fees in the UK where I live. That is, inferior candidates will be deterred from "hiding" in the humanities and arts and instead be pushed to do vocational work like being an electrician or plumber, which will often fit their intellectual profile much better. While I had time for Ton Blair's agenda i always thought that his stated target of 50% of students going to University was counterproductive nonsense. Thx D
So perhaps, instead of pointing out your own personal privilege (good for you) perhaps you could address the subject of the thread itself?