Yes so that more students have the opportunity to get a better education.
I understand college costing some money but there nees to be a significant decrease in what you pay. That way you can, as Jared said, get more education, and so you csn also not have so much financial stress.
i think this question takes the benefit of college for granted. with each added layer of education, we water down the experience of each stage of schooling. if college becomes so accessible that every single student may attend, then naturally, the overall quality of learning in college will be lowered. instead of opening up access to college, the correct path is to improve the current high school curriculum.
This question is definately a double edged sword. I believe there are some stuff you can leave out in schools that could potentially decrease the tuition rate significantly in accordance with the discretion of the facility members, but in regards to the actual facilitators that had worked their way from the bottom up to get to the position they're in now, I think to the victor goes the spoils - they earned their wages as teachers.
In school, or in training, I saw all my teachers as one thing - disciplinaries. They've been there, done that, worked out right from wrong, and they will grant you the help that you need, and guarentee you a damn good job if you possess the motivation and their trust in their words, reguardless of tuition, reguardless of experience.
I do however, believe that teachers should be paid relative to a fixed settlement in regards to a student-authored end-of-course critique.
There are teachers who deserve their throne, and then there's Paris Hilton.
RME wants to improve the school system, which is the root of a lot of problems--globalization, unemployment, and the list goes on.