> Unless you're trying to filter out poor people, removing tuition makes selection MORE fair.
You can have tuitions and financing options for poor people. As far as I understand Harvard and other universities operate schemes like that.
> Intelligence and capability should be the only criteria for selection, not money.
More than intelligence and capability it should be motivation. Make the access to university too easy and you have idiots like me taking up valuable resources because they were not forced to make a proper decision about what's good for them.
>As far as I understand Harvard and other universities operate schemes like that.
Harvard is one of the richest non-corporate entities in the world, currently holding a ~$30 billion endowment. Saying "well, Harvard manages to do it" is not useful when talking about higher education on the whole, particularly public education.
>Make the access to university too easy and you have idiots like me taking up valuable resources because they were not forced to make a proper decision about what's good for them.
Even in for-pay schools, intro classes are full of idiots. People willing to sign up inherently have the motivation. If they don't also have the intelligence they should fail and not get to take subsequent classes. If your complaint is that dumb people are allowed to take classes, I don't think that's a problem, unless schools are somehow forced to grade on a curve or otherwise pad the work of students who are not performing well enough.
You can have tuitions and financing options for poor people. As far as I understand Harvard and other universities operate schemes like that.
> Intelligence and capability should be the only criteria for selection, not money.
More than intelligence and capability it should be motivation. Make the access to university too easy and you have idiots like me taking up valuable resources because they were not forced to make a proper decision about what's good for them.