The proper level of education doesn't really mean college education - having 100% people go from high school to college isn't a goal, shouldn't be a goal and is not a desirable thing in any way whatsoever. For many "life paths" that any society needs going to college is a good thing, and for many of them it's a bad thing, wasting many years. This education should be available for the people who choose it, and people shouldn't be excluded for economic reasons; but for many people foregoing this choice wouldn't be a "wasted opportunity" but a good thing.

If anything, the USA education system has a problem with "overeducation" and not undereducation, mainly because weakness of vocational studies causes people to spend many extra years for gaining skills that could have been gained in a much shorter and efficient vocational study program.

It's not a problem for wealthy kids who can afford to spend a few years on the parts of the "college experience" that (in some cases) is less like investment in skills but more like a fancy self-improvement hobby, but we harm the poorer people if we make the education path unnecessarily long and thus expensive; it may make gaining the proper skills unaffordable even if education itself would be free, simply because they can't afford to waste this time without income before starting full time work.

>The proper level of education doesn't really mean college education - having 100% people go from high school to college isn't a goal, shouldn't be a goal and is not a desirable thing in any way whatsoever.

I guess that this is where we will have to disagree. I feel like this is the same sort of attitude that leads to "tracking" in schools, which can be devestating to ones educational future. We certainly do not need to enforce 100% equitable outcomes in higher education. But there is still a massive gap in equity of opportunity afforded to those who missed out on key skills in high school for one reason or another. These people should not be relegated to some vocational training program simply because they could not pass a multiple choice algebra quiz on entrance to a university.

What's wrong with working a mine? What's wrong with being a plumber? What's wrong with being an electrician? What's wrong with manual labor? What's wrong with the countless good paying jobs that don't require a college education?

I believe you may be the one with the elitist problem.

> Should kids that are not at the top of their class be left to work in the salt mines?

This is the canonical definition of a strawman argument.

How about looking the issue differently: what can education do to make students better at Math and English? Focus on these two disciplines.

Maybe they should work in salt mines? What is so bad about that? We need to get rid of this stigma that if you're not an intellectual then you're automatically some poor serf at the bottom rungs of society. Your attitude is a perfect example of elitist culture, that anyone who doesn't have an "advanced" ""education"" isn't worthy of any dignified position in society. Forcing all people to go through a watered down higher education is wasteful and stupid. Higher education is a thing only needed for certain roles and should only be attempted by a fraction of the population.

> The UC system is still the most prestigious, selective public university system in the world, and this will not affect that.

Is the UC system more prestigious than Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, or top prepas/grandes ecoles? Even the most jingoistic American wouldn't argue that the UC system is more prestigious than Oxford or Cambridge for undergraduate studies.

I mean I don't know if Oxford and Cambridge should be considered "public" the way the UCs are, but UC Berkeley and UCLA are in that tier, and like, does changing that line from "in the world" to "in the US" really change the point?

You're confusing a public school system with individual schools. Of course UC Merced is not on the same level as Oxford or LSE. But Berkeley and UCLA certainly are[1].

[1] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...

But the article isn't talking about UC, it's talking about CalState ... this link is old, but emphasizes differences between the two school systems: https://www.imperial.edu/ivc/files/WHAT_IS_THE_DIFFERENCE_BE... ... the original article points out this change is in effect at the 23 California State University campuses, and doesn't refer at all to the 9 or 10 (?) University of California campuses.

"smart people only"

Isn't that the whole point of university? I don't get it.

Saying college students should be able to pass remedial math and english tests isn't elitism.

If you can't pass a basic remedial test in basic math and basic english how are you going to take college level courses?

Where are you getting elitism from? Having some basic minimum standards isn't elitism. It's having standards.

It's elitism when you realize being born into the wrong school district and/or with the wrong parents may increase your chances of not being able to acquire those basic skills.

What we should really do is drop all grading systems and test scores entirely. They are flat out bad for people's self esteem. So long as people show up to class sometimes they should get a special badge they can put on that says "I went to college!"

I honestly cannot tell if this comment is sarcastic. There are legitimate arguments for this approach as kids identify early with "bad at math" for example, and that sticks with them.

My comment above had two points for a while, then for some reason was voted down and now has zero points. So here's an appeal to authority: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poo...