"We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there." You could say the sam

"We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there." You could say the same thing in reverse: it's just opting out of the pro-college dogma. Colleges have a huge amount of overhead like land, buildings, bureaucracy and enticements like fancy campuses and perks; much of it for students studying soft subjects with a lot of grade inflation. It's all paid for by government incentives and a trillion dollars in student loan debt. A lot of studies say that college degrees are still worth the cost, but I'd like to know if such studies control for the self-selection of college students. Is it that college puts people on the path toward success or that people on the path toward success tend to choose college? Also, do the various majors independently justify their costs, or are political science majors lumped with engineers? Today, I'd still probably choose college if I were 18 again (in engineering or one of a few other subjects). But ten years from now, I hope there are better alternatives available (which will make the colleges better, too), and college will just be one option that can survive without government subsidy. Such a change will also improve the liberal arts and soft subjects at colleges. Right now, such subjects are diluted by a lot of people that just don't know what to do, and think that those subjects are easier and leave more time to party. When those people are no longer encouraged by easy money and enticed by fancy campuses, or fear the stigma of not going to college, then the softer subject classes will be left with serious thinkers.