There are so many easy solutions in this thread, and so little reality. Reading it gets a little frustrating.
Are teachers underpaid? Massively. Medical doctors say they deserve their high salaries because it takes so many years to train for the profession. But it takes just as long, sometimes longer, to train to be a teacher or professor.
Let's cut administrative budgets by 80%? People should check their facts, or at least consult with someone who has experience running a University. The truth is that the *vast* majority of any University's budget goes to professor's salaries. Everything else pales by comparison. A good example? People complain about the cost of technology. The experts say technology in all its forms should make up about seven percent of a research university's budget. Most universities struggle to get to three percent.
Crisis in education? Education going downhill? Most of this is class warfare stuff, and the culture wars. If you want to get some actual data, try finding out what percent of americans graduated from high school in the 30's and 40's. Trace the 'decline in higher education' rhetoric back to the explosion of participation in universities thanks to the G.I. Bill and other forces after the war. Crisis of funding? Thank the rightwing tax revolt people. Case in point: California's Higher Education system was once literally the envy of the world. Then came Proposition 13. Since then, it's been one sad headline after another.
But if you want to get to the real class warfare stuff, it has nothing to do with consumerism. The truth is that the well off will always have access to excellent education. That's how that group keeps its power. The schools themselves loath this notion. A few years ago, Princeton stopped charging tuition, because they actually believed schools should be based on meritocracy. Other schools let in as many full scholarship students as they can. But the size of that group pales next to the 'legacy' students. None of this will ever change as long as we cling to the notion of private higher education. And that ain't going away, because it's how the people in charge stay in charge. Its whole basis is fundamentally anti-democratic.
But the real problems are even more basic than that. Want meritocracy? Consider the legendary Chinese examination system, which lasted far longer than Universities have lasted in the west. Almost anyone (except women or businessmen), no matter where they came from, could sit down and take a test and become a member of the ruling class. A peasant's son could, and did, find himself in the palace, running the country. Except it cost money: if your son becomes a scholar, you lose a farmhand during his time of study. Texts were expensive, so were tutors.
If you think this has changed, talk to a university admissions officer. The best predictor of an SAT score is not what school a student went to, or how many degrees her parents have. Instead, count the number of TV sets in the home. Count the number of computers, the number of cars in the driveway. Those numbers will predict the SAT score better than any other indicator.
There *is* a solution: universal public education. But the right will never go for that, because they rightly see it as a marxist, pro-democracy notion. So instead, they've accepted the so-called 'British Compromise.' As was said on the floor of Parliament in the 1800's: "Give them Shakespeare, or fight them on the barricades." In other words, if we provide just enough educational opportunities, we can prevent revolution and keep our class standing. The american right embraced this in a way that made the British look like neophytes. Amazingly, they seem to have forgotten their own arguments or motivations. Or maybe they just take it as a given: "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more..."
Thanks,
Bill