College is not and should not be mandatory. We should not offer it for free. We are not a social democracy. You can make a fine living without a college education.
The basic problem I see with what you are saying is that you think you can produce an educated populous by mandating it. The reality is that the drop-out rate is skyrocketed. People who need it are not getting educated through the capable school system already in place. There is no way to wave a wand so that they are suddenly ready for college.
It is a situation that is impervious to regulation.
No, you cannot make a fine living without a college education anymore. Instead, you make a basic living, usually below the poverty line or with the help of food stamps and other welfare. That is not a "fine" living.
And consider, the drop-out rate is skyrocketed under the current system, not my system. But why is that so?
It is because people are having a tougher time affording college. They are unable to pay for it or find loans for it, and so they must enter the work force without a college education and thus are denied the opportunity to apply for better jobs.
So it is not government-provided education that is causing these drop-out rates but rather the lack of money or credit to continue to pay for post-secondary education.
So what is likely to happen to those who are unable to attain a post-secondary education because of the high costs involved? One of two things.
The first is that they get an entry-level job and never leave that level. While they may have a high degree of experience, they have little to no formal training or education in their field. That makes it less likely for them to get a job despite having the skills for that job - they lack a certified piece of paper saying they are qualified, which is a barrier to employment.
The second thing is that they go into criminal enterprises. Search on Google for news reports about the increase in prostitution in our country due to the Great Recession we're currently in. People are becoming prostitutes in order to earn an income. The reason why is because currently the job market is so bad that they must resort to prostitution because there's a demand for it.
Now imagine that a person is perpetually denied access to a job market because they lack a post-secondary education to possess a qualified occupational or academic training. What do they do to earn income? They resort to criminal enterprises, such as prostitution, in order to earn an income. Only they don't possess any skills to get out of prostitution.
This shows why increasing access to education helps to reduce the crime rate. In order to understand this, you have to look at crime in an economic light and view it as an illegal business.
Criminals whose crimes earn money (such as drug crimes, prostitution, gambling, burglary, theft, contract killing) don't commit crimes because "they are just criminal" or because "they are just evil;" rather, they commit those crimes because one doesn't need any training in those criminal ventures. You don't need too much training in order to get clients as a prostitute. You don't need too much training to hook people on addictive drugs and get them to pay for that product. That is one reason why criminals start to commit crimes - there are low barriers to entry and they require few skills to start.
But who becomes such criminals? They are people who are 1) young, 2) minorities, 3) from impoverished areas. Why do people in these demographics start to commit crimes?
The young do it because they have trouble competing in job markets because their youth makes them inherently unskilled compared to others. They simply haven't had the time to learn skills that allows them opportunity in job markets. Now, this is supposed to offset by post-secondary education that they can access with student loans and scholarships - however, for those who cannot gain access to student loans or scholarships, many become criminals just to earn an income.
Minorities do it for a variety of reasons, most of them relating to ethnic disparity. In the past, minorities were discriminated against, making it difficult for them to enter the job market. Thus, they resort to crime to earn an income. However, there is also the cost of imprisonment factored into that, which is a burden to them and their dependents. And because their initial poverty is a barrier to opportunity, as is their criminal record, they must either continue criminal ventures to earn a viable income or resort to lower paying entry-level jobs. Because of this, they cannot afford to send their children to college and don't have the skills themselves to train their children on marketable job skills. That means that their children are taught to be criminals as well simply because it is the only job opportunity available to them. So they become career criminals just so they can earn a living. And the cycle continues, until it is broken by such efforts as affirmative action, which allows minorities to enter job markets that were denied to them before and allows them access to legitimate professional skills so they no longer have to be criminals in order to earn an income.
Impoverished areas are much the same as above. People who are from impoverished areas usually immediately enter the work force in order to earn income. This keeps many of them in entry-level positions instead of allowing them opportunity to occupations where they can demand higher income. This continues the cycle of poverty, which they can break easier by going on criminal business ventures to earn a greater income.
So increasing access to post-secondary education and occupational skills will help reduce crime rates because more of the population will have easier access to marketable skills. Fewer people will be required to resort to criminal enterprises in order to earn an income, and so will reduce the crime rate overall.
Another reason why I'd like tax-paid post-secondary education for all Americans is because of the disparity of income for graduates. Basically, all students pay the same for all credits in a college. However, graduates don't earn the same amount of income when they enter the job market. So while a 4-year degree for engineering costs the same as a 4-year English degree, an engineer earns more money than an English major does.
This is important when it comes to paying off student loans. Equal costs for degrees that allows people to earn unequal incomes mean that some types of professional accrue more debt than other types of professionals. Those who earn less find it a tougher time to pay off those loans. This is a further barrier to economic prosperity.
But allowing tax-paid post-secondary education will help offset that. I would also try to make the costs of education for a profession be relative to the income that such a professional could earn. That would decrease the disparity to paying back student loans between different professional areas and, should a tax-paid post-secondary education system arise, help reduce costs to taxpayers. (And I must admit I got this idea from Jeb Bush and Eric Cantor, who are both conservatives.)
And, effectively,
everyone needs a post-secondary education nowadays. Plumbers need not only job skills for plumbing but also education on environmental impacts of sewage and waste. Auto mechanics need more education on computer skills as cars and trucks become more computerized in order to increase the time of diagnosing problems with the automobile. Secretaries require more computer skills for a variety of programs and formats used to store and present information. Professional trades that were historically easy to enter into have become less so because of the increase in the need for formal education related to that professional field.
I am not naive enough to say that this system will end poverty in our country. However, I think it will reduce it. I also think it becomes more and more necessary as more and more professions rely more and more on automation and computerization.
