1. Counter-examples, taken from an offspring's acquaintance: a. Student 1 slacks off in high school, finds that his one choice is a middling state school in Ne

1. Counter-examples, taken from an offspring's acquaintance: a. Student 1 slacks off in high school, finds that his one choice is a middling state school in New England. Once there, he gets to work, makes good 1st semester grades, transfers to a better school in that region, will presumably graduate after four years of college. b. Student 2 starts at a good school in the mid-South, transfers after three years to a better thought of school in the mid-Atlantic, will graduate after five years of college. Both, however, show as having failed to graduate at the school where they started. I suspect this could have something to do with Stony Brook's anomaly--the better off kids transfer to a school they prefer. 2. No doubt there is a problem for the poorer kids with money. 3. Increasing the percentage of students with a college education is well and good, but a blunt instrument. Better to improve secondary and collegiate education.