> > Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22?
> Yes.
Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?
> Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?
Spending 10 years to get a degree versus 4 if you come from a privileged enough background isn't horrendous, especially when the person is working the entire 10 years to help get through the degree (probably close to break even vs going to to educational debt).
Would it be better if they finished in 4 and were able to potentially start earning more money earlier? Of course. But I feel it is completely reasonable for someone who is less-affluent to work hard for 10 years to make their life better if they choose to follow that path. That is what I meant by my statement, not that it's the best path or the most fair path, but it is a path that can be successfully achieved by many (and probably rewarding in many ways that the more affluent will not experience).
> Yes.
Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?