There is a fair bit of data to support the notion that those that work through are more focused, more efficient, and are more likely to leverage their credentials in a field relevant manner.
For me (since folks are reminiscing) I went to a state university (one of the big ones) a couple years after dropping out of a regional state university. My folks paid tuition (~1.5-3k/yr), books (~200/yr) and gave me a stipend (~2.5k/yr) ... it worked out to about 20k in support. I attended a 5th year, I paid for that. I worked summers only, about 1200 hrs a summer (a full time year is about 1900 hrs) at $7-8/hr with most of the time being overtime(timex1.5) (I paid taxes on that, for some of the time my parents used the deduction for me).
Dropping out for a couple years was an important interval for me and I can't see how me hanging in a dorm for those two years either silver spooning it or racking up debt would have been a good idea. Most of the folks who I know with the most balanced least encumbered current success got off the treadmill for a bit.
I did well in college, but not amazingly well, did an undergrad thesis project, apparently overachieved at that, got awesome recommendations, killed the GREs, and went to GS essentially for free (NIH and HHMI) where I was also given a living stipend ($13k/yr). I took on some debt (consumer debt) as 13k/yr didn't float the boat.
So basically, I had it reasonably easy, but it certainly depended on and required my performance.
My GS peers were mostly ivy, mostly without debt, mostly paid for by their parents. The ivy's had a much higher eject rate ... go figure. The environment was extremely competitive, not all survived. I mean that, one is six feet under, by his own choice, I spent some time with him the night before, I had no idea.
My model would be one more or less as I enjoyed: some support, some work, and some debt if need be. If the family can afford some support, I think they should, if not I think the gov should provide some support. I think folks should work some, and can see a role for some debt. I think that is Obama's model as well.
Some support, some work, some debt.
But the participant has to have some skin in the game ... and pure debt or pure support seems to lack the skin in the game quality. Kinda reminds me of a certain company. There are exceptions, those for whom the ride is entirely a free one and folks do amazingly well, and in my experience it is a consequence of individuals having very strong work ethic as a consequence of their upbringing - regardless of whether they are rich as hell.
Generally students from some families do well, even with awful teachers. Students from other families do more poorly. There are plenty of exceptions both directions, but certainly those silly things (work ethic, responsibility, accountability) carry the day. My experience is most teachers are competent and try hard, some are are remarkably gifted and I think of them often, and their are a few cynical dirt bags that *everybody* knows are dirtbags. But they are a comparatively small percentage, and for the most part in the higher grades (as I recall, but that may be just a reflection of me getting older/wiser and being able to tell).
State internment in teachers is modest, and state requirements for teachers are high. Constant professional development, additional courses, and so on. Most wildly underestimate the strain of being a teacher ... its as if your boss is standing right there, a foot away staring at you every second of the day ... except there is 20-30 of them. At least that is how it is for *responsible* teachers. It is a very hard job. Were it not for summers, the burn-out rate would be simply unsustainable. So the next time I hear the "only 180 days" thing I want to smack somebody. Its like calling Kandahar province "only a year".
| 