> Public institutions should be based on an entrance exam and that's it.
You mean the SAT? The problems with using a single exam as the primary criterion for acceptance is going to be basically the same as the problems with using the SAT--the scores are going to be very heavily correlated with how much money parents can throw at exam prep.
That's why I said it should be a pass/fail system, not ranked by performance. If you graduated a public school, that should be sufficient enough knowledge to pass the college entrance exam, and spots should be based on first-come, first-served.
Either public schools are teaching enough for college level work, or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.
I feel like you're wilfully ignoring the fact that there is actually a wide range of scholastic aptitude among highschool grads, and more generally among students at any level of education. should the curriculum at every college in the country be watered down until most high school graduates can also matriculate from college?
Are you implying the average student is not capable of obtaining a liberal arts degree at an average university?
Do we have to continue the traditional college model? Why can't you pay for a class, and have, say, up to a year to finish it without penalty? That would allow people to learn at their own pace. If after the first year, you're not done with your classes, then maybe college isn't for you.
> Are you implying the average student is not capable of obtaining a liberal arts degree at an average university?
about 70% of US high school students currently enroll in college. [0] of those, about 60% graduate in six years. [1] multiplying these two fractions together yields <50% of high school students graduating college in six years. so without drastically changing the current system (or accounting for choice of major, admittedly), it seems fair to say that the median high school student is not actually capable of attaining a bachelor's degree at a typical university.
do we have to continue with the current model? perhaps not, but my intuition is that allowing people to "learn at their own pace" would be more expensive per student. this is just based on my experience as a TA; it is far more work to grade assignments that aren't due on a predefined schedule. to what extent, I am not sure; TA time is not exactly expensive.
You mean the SAT? The problems with using a single exam as the primary criterion for acceptance is going to be basically the same as the problems with using the SAT--the scores are going to be very heavily correlated with how much money parents can throw at exam prep.