>This led to rising enrollment of relatively disadvantaged students, but primarily at poor-performing, low-value institutions whose students systematically fail

>This led to rising enrollment of relatively disadvantaged students, but primarily at poor-performing, low-value institutions whose students systematically failed to complete a degree, struggled to repay their loans, defaulted at high rates, and foundered in the job market. In the USA, reverse discrimination was found to be criminal. Some universities implemented illegal systems to continue doing this which turned out to be extremely abusive to minorities. Politicians still wanted to get minorities educated, and so they not only did this, but they also set it such that you can't bankrupt the debt. What was the effect? Univerisity risk greatly reduced and so tuition has been climbing every year since. You now have a cohort of people who in their prime years are paying down debt and not investing, not taking risks at entrepreneurship. They are also hit with so much debt that it might be decades before they truly start their life. The college-apprentice path simply by not having tremendous debt is by default going to be the safer path.