In the spirit of debate... > It's a terrible idea to look at a problem and say, "what's stopping this poor, under-educated person who has to work 10 hour days

In the spirit of debate... > It's a terrible idea to look at a problem and say, "what's stopping this poor, under-educated person who has to work 10 hour days and feed a family of three from doing self-education?" So instead we pull them out of the labor market (no income) for 4 years and tack on $100k in student loans for a humanities degree that is unlikely to lead to a high paying job? > A guarantee that the education will be worth anything when they're done, for two. Who is guaranteed this today? The reason we're having more of these debates about the value of formal secondary education is that the economy is pivoting from pedigree-based to skills-based hiring, and leaving a lot of degree chasers (and their families) underemployed and confused. > And three, can they actually do it? Maybe they have enough self-control but that isn't all that matters. If 40% of people who start secondary education fail to finish, then maybe it's appropriate to have a better filter for the motivation, discipline, and self-control needed to succeed? I know I didn't have the required inputs at 18, but I sure did by my mid 20s. > Many people can't self-educate - it won't work for them, as education is inherently a social process for some people. Self-education doesn't have to be a solitary endeavor. There's a spectrum of opportunities between isolation on one end and traditional college on the other - meetups, mentorship, book clubs, online forums and communities, interactive online courses, community groups, etc. I'm just arguing that if we want a generation that values humanities - which I agree is important - we can get it in other ways than pushing a lot of 18 year old kids into history, philosophy, english, and political science degrees at expensive 4 year universities.