[cSoze]

>But they're mature enough to kill for and be killed for the national military (sometimes against their will), contribute to governmental policy decisions, and have children?

I don't think they are mature enough for that, no. We weren't arguing that part (at least not yet). 21 would be a much more reasonable age for that, but 25 would probably be best. There's a reason that you can't rent a car below 21 and that you have to make a significant extra payment below 25.

[chrisseaton]

Are you proposing preventing people from having children below 25? That seems incredibly draconian and intrusive.

Are you also proposing preventing people from joining the military below 25? In terms of a male physical's peak, 25 is pretty late on in the game to start trying to train him to be a soldier.

[cSoze]

No, I'm not proposing that at all, however, we certainly discourage people from having children at a young age. Military leadership could fairly easily adjust its recruitment practices, it relies far less on physical aptitude nowadays. Regardless, I don't really think this tangent is relevant to the discussion of college education.

You can shift mean college attendance age in a myriad of ways. Off the top of my head, bring public universities back under federal funding, reduce the for profit motives. Then start preferentially admitting students with a year or more of work experience as well as the current academic standards.