Universal university?

Cross posted at Political Arguments.

Light blogging today, and probably no blogging until the academic year starts again.

But a post from Matthew Yglesias on college education deserves attention. I'll bracket the discussion of unskilled labor and intergenerational justice (which isn't getting far in MY's comments section). I'll point you instead to the argument for universal college education.

Some of the commenters have made the excellent point that universal college education (unlike, say, universal literacy) is neither necessary nor desirable. The reason is thoroughly pluralistic: not everyone wants to learn the same things, or devote themselves to the kind of work for which college should ideally prepare one. A society should have different options available for people who want to choose different careers, and this society doesn't seem to be doing a good job providing opportunities to make a decent living as a skilled laborer.

I'm slowly coming to the opinion that the problem may have to do with the state's near-monopoly in public education. I would argue that a state controlled by professionals of various stripes is not politically or ideologically equipped to offer various educational alternatives, or at least to present them as equally deserving of merit. As it stands, the professional track is clearly regarded as superior, and the "best" students are those who perform better at the skills required for university education.

Can an attempt be made to offer alternatives, which would require some type of tracking? But the ones making the decision to "diversify" education are not themselves diverse; the vast majority of politicians and policy-makers themselves chose the professional career track. Wouldn't the children who are turned away from the professional career path be rightly suspicious of their motives?