Michael Smith wrote the function of higher ed is:
Gatekeeping, basically; the legitimation of inequality under the factitious rubric of meritocracy.
--------------- This is not entirely true. You can learn a language, math, science...
But you know, in the startup I worked for we used to have wine at work on Fridays, and nicely lubricated non-business chat would stretch out for a few hours after that. Nearly all of these people were educated at the ivies or the top UC schools. I listened and listened and I decided finally that what I heard was neither wiser nor smarter than chat in general. These people were not particularly more curious or better read than most. I have been to many of their houses, and many have no books. But as a result of their education they shared certain commonplaces that were trotted out and displayed to establish a common identity, a reassurance that they belonged to a special set. And a lot of the conversation was just about that ritual claim to this corpus of ideas/prejudices/cliches etc.
Now, of course, most of them were pretty smart and had put in several decades of work in programming....so they did have analytical skills, etc. But that was the result of the work they did after college, not of college itself.
I think I'm writing all this to say that a lot of what college bestows is a kind of club membership which doesn't necessarily translate into actually useful knowledge or into a higher level of critical thinking than is possible for most.... college or no college.
I am an indefatigable learner and reader. But I think the really radical thing to do is not to send everyone to college, but to make education/work/home completely intertwined for a whole lifetime.
This won't happen in a capitalist society, I know, but if leftists are going to talk about education and what role it might play in promoting learning and eliminating alienation, then it should be part of the conversation.
Joanna