comment: >
  
  Isn't the real issue here the limited understanding of the impact of large financial decisions at 18 rather than anything about college? If a kid comes from a wealthy family that will pay their way, why shouldn't they consider college? If our society subsidized college making it relatively "free," why shouldn't they consider college? The basic idea is that there are other considerations and solutions rather than focusing on people's age.
context: There's nothing inherently wrong with continuing higher education after high school. It's arguably the best time to do so before you have other financial or social responsibilities that would prevent you from being able to dedicate yourself to it.
  The problem is that everything in our society costs too much. In the past, you could pay your own way through college on a part time job. Hell, you could even buy a car and a house and raise a family on an entry-level wage. The fact that college requires crippling debt is a symptom of an economic failure in society toward the working class, not an inherent issue with a college education. Even factoring that into account, it's still usually better to go to college. >
  
  It should be noted that being able to buy a car and a house and raise a family on an entry-level age or pay through college on a part-time job without any outside support is something specific to US in the first half-to mid 20th century. Other countries did not have it that good, even western ones. And 20th century US was a product of long-standing policies that emphasized economic growth even at the cost of immediate comfort - something that hasn't been the case for at least the last half century.
  Also the countries that provide the essentials to people as part of welfare typically have some kind of cost-saving solution in place to provide people some degree of a service without bankrupting the country. E.g. if welfare provides you support to get your own place to live, it will be much, MUCH smaller than what americans have grown used to consider adequate. Even in the countries with the best welfare medicine, it will rely in using no-frills labs and consultations for vast majority of things, and only escalates to higher level if it's not sufficient. Whereas in US full-blown hospital visits are a large part of first-line medical treatment. Problem is - among the people in US who put the most energy into campaigning to improve the situation the bulk of the effort goes into "give us more money", even though the current universities and hospitals are more than capable of finding ways to use more money without necessarily improving the situation. And on the other side US has a major shortage of people who point out specific problems, provide specific detailed methods they can be improved, ideally by using stuff that was already shown to work elsewhere and fix the general inefficiency of US systems rather than just throwing more money at the problem - basically people who are professionals and not just activists.