I'm married to an primary school educator and you are bang on. Not that I'm implying zero sum, but if effort is to be prioritized, this whole college discussion is moot. An emphasis on education needs to start in the home with some behavioral training by the parents to ready the kids for an educational setting. It's been a growing problem for years and if it keeps getting worse, we might as well enroll everyone in Harvard for free, because it eventually won't matter.

EDIT: What I mean by that is partially to say, dealing with motivation and behavior occurs at lower grade levels and schools are fighting an uphill battle. Affirmative action politics at the collegiate level feels like putting the cart before the horse.

>Why do people always place so much emphasis on college when it’s clear that the entire system before that point is failing kids?

Because the hot topic this past decade or 2 has been about the college bubble. And we conflate college with university. I think Community college is cheap enough that no one is worried about paying off debts for 20 years in CC, but there is certainly that problem with university. With almost zero alternatives.

And to be frank, it (university costs) is an easier problem to solve. there are (apparently) 1600 accredited universities. I'm not sure about free, but if we can price control tuition (and all those other "extra fees". I know your loopholes) for even 100 of those universities, that would create opportunity where none may exist now. elementary/secondary education... we're talking 10's of thousands of schools to take into account. And as is any policy would probably benefit schools that need that support less.

> but there is certainly that problem with university. With almost zero alternatives.

The alternative is mostly that a lot of people shouldn't be going to college. We shouldn't be guaranteeing loans and the government shouldn't be in the business of handing out student loans. That is a large contributor to the massive inflation in student fees. When you improve elementary education, the negative effects of less people attending college are offset by the general working knowledge of the populace being higher, of better quality, and with a mindset that allows people to really think and learn.

Without that, all we're doing is basically setting people up for failure and a whole lot of school debt. There is a large percentage of Americans who have absolutely nothing to show for their time and money spent on college because they never completed their degree.

> And as is any policy would probably benefit schools that need that support less.

The entire public school system is one that favors the privileged. They are funded largely by property taxes and so obviously the wealthier your area is, the more funding and thus better education children have access to.

So yes, there is extreme deficiencies in equity when it comes to educational opportunities in the United States. Providing subsidized college doesn't fix that issue and it doesn't target the right people, either.

I wouldn't necessarily oppose actual public (completely government funded) universities that compete with the private schools, but that's serving such a small population of people for it to really see much benefit.

>The alternative is mostly that a lot of people shouldn't be going to college

Well you need some sort of post secondary education these days if you don't want to be stuck in entry level jobs. It's not like I'm opposed to trade schools nor the peace corp nor apprenticeships. But trade schools are also feeling a similar strain these days and apprenticeships are non-existent for high school graduates.

Saying people shouldn't go to college is like saying people shouldn't have good jobs. And i don't think that's a better alternative.

> Well you need some sort of post secondary education these days if you don't want to be stuck in entry level jobs.

This is entirely because people created this notion that everyone should go to college. The vast majority of jobs don't need specialized education that college is supposed to offer. If you start deemphasizing college as a basic requirement, while simultaneously improving the education system from the bottom up, you will create better outcomes and a more educated population.

Most people don't have college degrees in the US and yet it isn't the case that half of the population is unemployed.

I don't disagree with you. But convincing jobs to lower their automated HR requirements in a time where they can still hire plenty of college grads seems harder than encouraging post secondary education. Which is already harder than getting proper primary/secondary education. In addition, it seems futile to discourage acedemia from encouraging students to remain in their bubble. It goes against their best interests.

I'm simply talking about the path of least resistance. We're well past the times where you walk into a mom and pop shop and grab a job in a few days time. At least in Metropolitan areas.

> Elementary and Secondary education is what desperately needs attention, not college. Certainly not with public funding.

I just don't get this. Yes we need to improve primary and secondary education, but we can't just pretend like tertiary education doesn't matter to people. College isn't just about learning material in classrooms. College provides a way for young people to transition in a structured way into adulthood. It provides job opportunities and social interaction that you just can't get as easily or consistently if you immediately go into the workforce as a high school grad.

I'll leave you with this, a list of 39 other countries that provide free or very cheap college for their citizens - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

> College provides a way for young people to transition in a structured way into adulthood.

Given that the majority of people in the United States do not have even an associate's degree and still transition into adulthood, even if your assumption that it gives people a structured way into adulthood was correct, it's serving less than half the population. The majority of people do complete high school, or an equivalent, though. It's pretty plainly clear that preparing children to transition into adulthood needs to start earlier. That goes hand in hand with the failure of the elementary and secondary education systems in the United States.

Also, just philosophically, I am morally opposed to the idea that people who don't or start complete college for one reason or another should be subsidizing those who can and do. College degree holders earn dramatically more money in their lifetime over non college graduates.

I understand that the goal is to expand the number of people that can attend college. I think that you would expand that number more by improving the K-12 system and you'd leave everyone better off by doing so. If you want to increase the number of disadvantaged people in university (i.e. the people that would go to college if it were free but can't afford it so they don't) you should look at expanding the Pell grant, not subsidize college for everyone.

A teacher friend's school was sued because they disciplined black students more often. No consideration for the fact that the disruptive students were indeed disruptive. Now they're just not allowed to keep discipline, full stop. You can imagine the results for everyone else in class, the well-behaved blacks included (who are statistically most likely in need of a good learning environment at school)

There are definitely many facets to the problem, and education is only one part of the equation in many poor (black, hispanic) neighborhoods. One can only change the variables that they have access to, however. I think it will take some time but ultimately I think elementary education in particular is super critical.