This system has many advantages:

1. It is much cheaper for parents and the government as it allows students to work right away and to use their earnings for further studies. (Of course, the government can offer subsidized loans which can be deducted in small amounts from pay or companies can subsidize tuition in exchange for a service contract.)

2. It removes the need for having athletic programs, recreation, etc., as it is companies and not students who will probably look into the effectivity of schools. Also, students will likely be working part- or full-time and will be answerable to employers, which means they will not spend too much time on extracurricular activities until they finish their training.

3. It allows schools to work with professional organizations, such that students will be evaluated not only by schools but by their employers.

Indeed, if students were well informed about their prospects I don’t see why it would be so bad for late bloomers to try. Imagine someone comes to you [the late bloomer with a poor record] and says, “Try to work towards this degree for proper training and potentially high financial rewards. There’s a 50-50 chance you won’t make it.” Depending on what is learnt, that’s not always a bad gamble.
The tragedy is when they don’t understand what’s entailed or worse that they finish the degree and neither learn anything useful nor derive value from the credential.

The survival of these institutions is based on maintaining the charade that some lofty educational purpose is being served here. Retention is the watchword. Lowering standards is the de facto policy.

The public and the politicians are not ready to face the facts either. Parents have to make sensible decisions.

1. Most institutions fit Tier 3 and 4 criteria. They cater to “late bloomers,” those trying out college to see how it fits, and those seeking credentials and certifications. They mostly teach what other publish. Tier 3 and 4 private schools have relied on these students and their government tuition subsidies to stay fiscally solvent for almost four decades. Value added assessments would require major adjustments for institutions and students, and perhaps some school closings.

2. Tier 1 and some Tier 2 institutions are research, not teaching, oriented. They try to admit students ready to learning in these environments with little or no extra support. Value added assessments would fundamentally alter the vision and mission of these institutions without providing alternatives for these functions.

How do these points fit your observations?

Here’s a news flash: those aren’t college skills. Pundits and politicians must stop looking at colleges and universities as the source of last-minute educational intervention. Rather than encourage Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) to accept unqualified students, encourage IHL to set barriers to entry. Entrance exams, for example. An entrance exam, however, would weed out those who aren’t prepared, and who would be wasting their time and money.

A value added test at the end of a college education is a disaster waiting to happen. All it would create is a new level of bureaucracy, and it would waste the time and money of those students who are prepared. Also, college is not trade school. Build trade schools, for heaven’s sake, and stop trying to turn colleges into trade schools through back-door methods such as “career preparedness” exams. Better yet, create a system of scholarships to these new trade schools, and encourage students who don’t qualify for college to learn trades.