Not as a matter of politics or culture, but of necessity. People who have wealth to fall back on can take more risks. Get completely "worthless" degrees for example. Those without wealth have to aim for more certain outcomes, or put themselves in danger.
Hence the college debt crisis. If many of the same people went to vocational schools, they could have been dept free and better off. This problem is apparent even in more generous public funded school systems.
My country guarantees free tuition and housing stipend to all college aged for their bachelors and masters. But I have too many acquaintances that are now working in positions they are very much overqualified for.
Literature major working as a low level clerk for example.
> Literature major working as a low level clerk for example.
What exactly is a literature major qualified to do though? I don't say this to be mean it is just there is this strange perception out there that the very act of getting a degree in something "qualifies" you for some job that will be high-paying etc.
I think of a counter-example where if someone got a degree in scuba-diving would they be "over-qualified" to be a clerk? Well it depends what we mean by "qualified" right? I only think someone is overqualified for their job if their skill set is:
1. In high demand
2. They are unable to practice it
For example, a doctor working unwillingly as a taxi driver is over-qualified because there is huge demand for doctors but for whatever reason this person can't get a job. Or a developer working as a street cleaner etc.
Having a qualification that you don't use isn't enough to be determined "over-qualified". It is only if there is demand for your skills but you can't use them for whatever reason that it makes sense.
What I'm saying is that if you are poor, your best bet is to choose to pursue whatever education brings you the best possible job.
Why do you immediately separate eduction by wealth?
I suspect you mean that the purpose of eduction is to ensure that an individual can be gainfully employed and not be a burden on the state. One of your aims would be heading off any poor students pursuing a less lucrative degree (liberal arts).
This seems like a rather sad view of education.
I'm not suggesting in any way a class-based education system, which are awful. I'm simply stating that if you are poor, your best bet is to pursue whatever education lands you the best possible job.
Which is a bit sad, pre-industrial revolution children could work and help with chores, both for sustenance farmers and for tradesmen. They were a net positive from a rather early age, and I'm pretty sure this had a (positive) impact on their psychological development as well.
In my view, the purpose should be: - enable each individual to function independently in society.
For poor individuals, a technical education that helps land you a good job is absolutely great and is an enabling factor for many things to come.
For individuals from richer families with a wide array of opportunities (e.g., middle class in the west), no doubt a traditional liberal arts education is fantastic.