I have heard, from a colleague, that college is free in Germany. Playing out this scenario in the mind, one would imagine the economic barrier to college degrees would be significantly lower. One might expect the application rates would drastically increase, although I recognize the barrier to entry into post-secondary education is not entirely removed for oppressed groups. Would an increase in application rates increase enrollment rates? Could colleges and universities support an excess of students? There are only so many professors, academic specialists, and teaching assistants.
Failing a course is significantly less harmful to one’s bank account and career. There is always next semester. Hell, picking what university to go to is significantly less daunting, if you do not like it, or the program you are in, stop going. Although geographical location is still limiting opportunities for those who cannot afford to so easily re-locate.
The number of students enrolled in introductory science courses would change, requiring different means of instruction. How might higher education respond in differentiating curriculum to meet the needs of the diversified population?
You could differentiate at the institutional, degree/program, or course level. If differentiation occurred at the institutional level, that would inevitably affect the degree/programs and courses offered at such an institution. Although, a university specialized in chemistry seems highly unpractical. Possibly, a more general STEM university. Maybe this will better meet the needs of the population, removing extraneous elective courses. Please note, I do not advocate for the deletion of liberal education. I can reasonably see an introductory humanities course centered around science. Analyzing Chemistry and the Industrial Revolution: From Haber–Bosch to the Atomic Bomb, or Epistemologies of Non-Western Science both sound like great titles for courses. I only wish to argue that by understanding the perspectives of the population of students we teach, it will help inform our pedagogy to better meet the needs of those students. Curriculum can more easily reach students where they are, building on their prior knowledge more effectively or removing content students already know.
However, there is still more differentiation to be done. For example, a natural science focused institution could offer a chemistry degree, a biology degree, and a biochemistry degree. Of course, these degrees overlap somewhat with expected skills, knowledge, abilities, etc. So enviably some courses offered will have students who have different degrees. But when do you stop and say, these people need these courses, while these people do not? By what criteria do you determine what people need? Let’s say that criteria solely depend on the usefulness for the purpose it serves (i.e. how well it prepares students for their careers/lives). But, eventually our hypothetical chemist, biologist, and biochemist will be doing different things in their careers. So, you differentiate the courses within the program. But how? I suppose the current model is when undergraduates begin taking higher-level courses; courses that prepare individuals not for generalized application of knowledge, but for specialized application of the skills/abilities and knowledge required to be successful in a students’ career. But how ineffective, too many undergraduates taking courses they will never remember.
Regardless, if college was free, I could see the ‘pipeline’ to the middle class significantly altered.
JLS