> Those schools that are providing substantial negative value to their students ought to go under I don't think this is a good way to go about it because there

> Those schools that are providing substantial negative value to their students ought to go under I don't think this is a good way to go about it because there is still demand for schooling and if the market's answer to bad quality is having schools go under, it just becomes a game of whack-a-mole with new bad schools popping up to fill the gap in supply. I think a better alternative is having more schools have tuition costs tied to graduate salary similar to how some programming bootcamps take a cut of alumni's pay for X amount of time. Then, at least, there's an incentive for the school to teach something that actually translates to a usable skillset in the real world. Trades should also be treated as first class citizens. They are good fits for people looking for shorter college diplomas, but they are often stigmatized even though careers like plumbing can pay reasonably well.