I work at Harvard, and I can tell you there is a real push to create a quality experience in remote learning, and a lot of resources are being directed towards this. It is not just the same classes via Zoom. Of course these enhanced learning environments could be replicated on campus as well, there's nothing particularly special about the remote learning environment.

But as you suggest, it is the residential experience that most folks are paying for. Harvard considers the residential experience as one of their primary value propositions. That is why Harvard and other schools are working very hard to get students back to campus. It's a difficult balancing act between this and maintaining the health of the campus. A major outbreak amongst undergrads would be a serious blow to everybody involved, so health is always going to come first.

Also worth noting that 20% of Harvard students pay 0 tuition, and more than 50% get needs-based scholarships. https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid. So if you're smart enough, and/or fit into the financial aid brackets, why not go to Harvard? What's the risk there?

Are you seriously suggesting that 50% the most talented students in the country have $313,000 for tuition?

If financial aid and scholarships worked as advertised, Ivy League schools would be filled to the brim with talented people. There would be no space left for stupid kids with rich parents. Yet those kids get in, reliably. There were many scandals related to that recently. Heck, just look at the children of major US politician and media elites.

1. Legacy: If your parents went to Harvard, you're much more likely to get in. This allows the meritocratic wheel to keep turning, in theory, but in practice allows Harvard to let in many rich/privileged individuals who will not cost them and who may bring in big $$ donations over time.

2. Harvard brags about its myriad sports programs...WHY? If it's the best school in the world, why are they giving away 100's of seats to people who manipulate spherical objects adeptly? Their ability to manipulate objects or move their bodies skillfully has VERY LITTLE to do with progressing our civilization. Shouldn't those seats go to the next generation of brilliant minds, not brilliant bodies?

I was always impressed with my friends who had the mental fortitude to wake up at 6 every day, practice for 3-4 hours, go to class, practice after class, and still take the courses/do the research necessary for elite graduate schools. Meanwhile, I woke up at 11 AM on a good day and only started going to the gym regularly my senior year. I honestly can't say the proportion of "regular" athletes to "smart" athletes was any different from that of students in the general population.

2-3 years small salary vocational training straight out of HS at 1 of 400k participating companies in 1 of 400 role types.

I want to know why implementing this isn't a national debate in US, it seems like such an obviously good idea.

Surely manual workers in the US are already learning to do their jobs somehow. What makes you think the German system would be an improvement?

High school drop out did not finished the school he intended to and does not have degree. This is person who is "out of the education system" who are not assumed to know anything.

In one case you are learned woodworker (say) and in another ... nothing.

How do companies who need skilled woodworkers in the US decide whom to hire? I'd guess they look for previous work experience. It's not clear to me whether an American who spent three years as an unskilled woodworker is any worse off in terms of job prospects than a German who spent three years as a woodworking apprentice.

This is the route I took BTW.

I have had interviews just stop dead (with European companies) when it turned out I didn't have a Degree.

They are not malicious, per se, but they don't explicitly care that a large portion of the population is becoming so abject that working in the amazon fulfillment gulags is their only option, and that public infrastructure is crumbling.

So when you ask: "Why doesn't the US do something GOOD for once?" The answer is: Oh, we want to. But our lords purse strings are too tight.

Beyond that the administration of the program, certification at the end, etc. probably wouldn't be so expensive.

Think it shouldn't be viewed as threatening.

This kind of forced homogenization of outcomes is why many in the US are so skeptical of progressivism- instead of accepting that Johnny might succeed as a plumber let's force him to be another mediocre college-track student because the educational establishment 'knows' that's the only way to be successful.

Because it would involve respecting blue-collar workers, and beating up on Labor(TM) (really: wage suppression for the working class) takes priority in America over doing what's economically and socially rational.

Edit: could any of the downvoters explain their reasoning? I guess this could have come off as facetious because I mentioned partying or something, but I'm completely serious -- why wouldn't cultural reasons be a major factor?

The way we break this is by changing our hiring decisions. If you have a Harvard grad (or other private university grad) in front of you, consider if they really are the right candidate. Consider recruiting from local community and public colleges, including public non-traditional colleges. Build a rapport with the job placement offices at these schools. If candidates are missing something, work with the schools to improve their curricula.

This is 100% the right answer. Source: my career in higher education has been mostly at the community college level.

Universities and 4-year colleges are not as incentivized as community colleges to build career pathways and make direct changes to curriculum based on external input. Most community colleges (I'm betting all of them, but I can't say that for sure) have committees of business leaders to inform curriculum decisions. Community colleges are also more nimble when it comes to creating degree pathways - therefore, if the graduates do not have the skills they need for your business, they can spin up a new degree in less than a year, fully accredited, while universities may take 3-5 years.

Further, businesses can impact individual class curriculum at a community college via these advisory committees. This just simply does not happen at a university.

They are pushing college WAY less and pushing vocational training WAY MORE. I've had my younger cousins reach out to me interested in vocational training and my opinions on that. ( My opinion? Pick a major with a career. Do two years of community college, finish up at a major university. Vocational jobs are well paying and are perfectly respectable, but tend to be pretty hard. )

Not attacking you personally btw. You seem to see the nuance required of the conversation.

In my view the college experience (societies, living away from home, mixing with people from outside your local area) is far more useful than the actual teaching. "There's a time and a place for everything - and it's called college".

However with covid, all that is removed, and you're left with some lectures (which in normal times you can't pause or rewind, and may well be at terrible times of the day), and an occasional chat with a bored professor.

It's very unlikely that this lasts more than another semester or so though. If you're looking to enroll in the fall or the next year, it shouldn't be a big concern.

2021 onwards sure, things will be back to normal

Chance of death for a 20 year old in the UK is about 1 in 4k, so you're 5-10 times more likely to die for some other reason than covid.

Indeed by moving away from home you're less likely to infect older parents, so it's a rational call.

In the unlikely event it turns out that we can't develop a vaccine in the near future, we'll have to just deal with the disease long term. If we try to keep the world economy shut down for more than a few months at a time, we'll kill more people than COVID would. And as other people have pointed out, college students are very low risk.

I think it was always a brand but the educational value is questionable in modern times. What they sell today is mostly access and nepotism. I think a real benefit is the tendency to leave your family home for higher education. Maybe that is why I remember my time studying so fondly.

(I love my family, but if you don't want to get out of there by the time you hit 18, there must be something wrong with you)

The main purpose, and primary advantage, of a university is being a place of learning. That means you are embedded in a community that is focused around the pursuit of knowledge.

At the very least, you are embedded in a community of peers, some studying the same subject as you and invaluable as a resource to bounce ideas around with, and studying other subjects, giving you exposure to ideas you didn't even know to look up.

And that's before you even get to the fact that you get access to professors and other faculty who are extremely knowledgeable in their respective fields. Unless you are from an extremely academic background, it is highly unlikely your typical social circle includes several PhDs. But all your professors have one.

And compounding on that, you're in an environment designed to be conducive to learning. No where else will you find more resources and cultural forces aimed towards learning. Even those wild college parties are still filled with people who are engaged in academic pursuit at least half the week.

Many high schools have test-taking built into the curriculum for the first half of that year of school.

Some states have replaced their standardized testing with the SAT/ACT.

SAT: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia.

ACT: Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Also, the implementation of SAT prep is spotty at best. As with most things, whether the schools have test prep is pretty reliant on how well funded the individual district is. At least that's my experience.

Of course, that’s all on the pretty cynical side and the majority of people I think are overall aligned with the mission of providing the best possible education and research environments. But, the above is where Scott is coming from, and certainly holds some water. Particularly in his area of academia ahem business schools ahem.

Mind you, there are extra book-keeping rules. For instance, the highest salaries at an institution (and I believe salaries over a certain amount) and who is making them must be publicly disclosed.

At the end of the day, it's a way to not pay taxes.

Stakeholders are still getting paid in different ways: high salaries and job security, "administrator" jobs that shouldn't exist.

In other words, it's socialism.

If I was an outgoing high school senior this year, I would 100% be attending a community college in the fall. If you're all online, there are no connections to be made on campus, and res. life isn't part of the equation. At that point, there are no incentives to pay more for the same first two years of college.