Why do people assume that more heavily subsidized post-secondary education would lead to more people getting degrees? Countries such as Finland, Germany, Belguim, Italy, Austria, Finland, France, Switzerland, and Ireland all have lower degree completion rates compared to Canada despite having free or nearly free post-secondary education for citizens. Conversely, the United States has one of the highest rates with about 31% of the 24-65 population having a university degree.
The number of spots would remain fairly similar, it's just the biggest barrier for entry would be academic, not financial. I'm not saying I agree with doing that, but fully funded post secondary education doesn't mean free school for all, just those that can meet and maintain the academic standards. The idea behind that would be that you'd have people who want to be there and are able to excel in their field taking up the spaces in universities as opposed to kids who are more or less killing time and partying at university on their parents' dime.
You'd still have a larger sector of the population for low skilled work because there would tons of people who didn't have the aptitude or ambition for post secondary education. Frankly I think universities giving degrees to anyone who has the cash and can maintain a bare minimum GPA devalues a post secondary education more than having a more heavily subsidized system with rigorous standards ever would.
|