Making it free is not " best".
It only transfers part of the problem
to others to pay
According to the Arizona Constitution (and this may reflect other states, but not sure), Article XI, Section 6: "The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible."
At this point, it's not free, although residents pay lower tuition than non-residents. However, some have been questioning why it isn't free if the Constitution says it's supposed to be as nearly free as possible. In any case, tuition alone does not cover all the costs to run the universities. They still need plenty of taxpayer money to operate.
That's why athletics often get a pass at universities, since college football and basketball are money-makers.
As for 'job training", if only!
That's the thing. People can get job training at a trade school. Why does anyone need to attend a university and take classes which have nothing to do with their choice of vocation? They could probably fast-track and streamline the coursework required to get a certification for some sort of job, but the original idea was education for its own sake.
Like, for example, art history, which people snicker at these days as a useless degree, but at one time, societies used to appreciate art and wanted at least some people to be educated in that field.
Or they might teach people to become creators, thinkers, theologians, philosophers...but not any specific "job skill" because that wasn't what they were originally set up to do. Back when universities were first established, only nobles and aristocrats were able to attend, and since their future was already set, they didn't need to actually learn anything useful.
As an undergrad at a good American university,
not some state school, I still saw so many
students who were just there coz mommy and daddy said they should be and their immature
brains didn't get it that they will have to pay
some day. Unrealistic career goals, if any at all.
It was useful back when fewer people attended college and fewer people had degrees. Heck, back in the day, there were a lot more high school dropouts than anything else. But if someone had a college degree, it indicated some level of breeding, gentility, culture, and well-roundedness. It would indicate someone who is eloquent, intelligent, literate, and able to accomplish something by getting a degree in the first place.
It served a purpose similar to what "finishing school" once was - even if the knowledge they had was completely useless. But if you're at some high-level executive cocktail party and the subject of Shakespeare comes up, you might end up looking like a complete fool if you don't know anything about Shakespeare.
But now that college degrees are a dime a dozen, they don't really carry the same level of mystique or clout that they once did. A bachelors degree now is equivalent to what a high school diploma was 50 years ago. Now, employers have come to expect advanced degrees and training.
Funny thing is, from what I've heard from people in a variety of professions, whatever they learned in college didn't really help them much when they actually entered the career world. I remember a lawyer saying that he learned how to be a lawyer in the first six months of actually doing that job. He said that what he learned in law school was interesting, but functionally useless when it came to the nuts and bolts of actually doing the job. It's the same with doctors, as they're not going to graduate from med school and then start doing open heart surgery the next day.
I can see giving a free education to a poor
student who applies, as for a grant, with a
track record and a solid plan.
Well, there are scholarships and aid programs based on need. Those are already in place.
