To what end, "more college degrees?" A better measure of intellectual capital is needed.

http://tinyurl.com/klvo2o
Yes, We Can Expand Access to Higher Ed More college degrees will be good for the economy.By PETER MCPHERSON and DAVID SHULENBURGER
For generations, the United States has led the world in higher education.****Perhaps a better metric for "higher education" is the number of PhDs, especially scientific ones, and the amount and quality of research done in these institutions.That's not sufficient for economic advantage, however, because half the science PhDs are foreigners and have to go back home due to a dearth of H-1B visas. That means U.S. higher education is enhancing our COMPETITORS at our own expense.**** But today the U.S. has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young adults (age 25-34) who attain college degrees among the countries belonging to the OECD.In Japan, Korea and Canada, more than 50% of young adults hold college degrees. Only 41% do in the United States. The question is: Should we do more? Our nation's economic future depends on it. Our educational advantage made us the world's leader in discovery, invention and innovation. Our labor force has been able to perform better and receive higher wages because of its intellectual capital. But as that capital lags behind that of its competitors, our country's prominence is at risk.
The bottom line is that education affects economics. The more educated a work force is the more value it adds to society. We can chart this by looking at the way income levels vary with educational degrees. Since 1980, the gap between the earnings of those with bachelor's degrees and those with just high-school diplomas has widened. The ratio between the median earnings of men with the former and men with the latter grew to 1.99 in 2007 from 1.43 in 1980. In today's harsh economy, there is a strong correlation between education and employment. In May 2009, those with bachelor's degrees have an unemployment rate of 4.8%; associate's degree, 7.7%; high-school degree, 10.0%; and less than high-school degree, 15.5%.
Given the impact education has on the economy, the U.S should set a goal of college degrees for at least 55% of its young adults by 2025. This is in line with President Barack Obama's statement that "by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world." This goal would require graduating an additional 875,000 students per year -- a 42% increase of people with at least an associate's or bachelor's degree.
...We propose to: 1) enroll a higher percentage of high-school graduates, now 64%; 2) increase the number of adults returning to college; and 3) increase college graduation rates while maintaining educational quality.****Educational "quality" will be hard enough; educational "relevance" seems not even within the ken of Obama et al.****...To realize these goals, the historic partnership between higher education and the state and the federal government should be re-established. It is the only way that this country will increase its number of degree holders by 42%, a task that will obviously require more resources than public universities and colleges currently have.The administration and Congress have taken the first steps to expand the number of degree holders, including increasing Pell Grant funding and GI educational benefits. These steps will help more low- and middle-income students attend college.....
****Yoda must respectfully submit that college degrees are not a commodity, undifferentiated by nature, depth and value. Not only have grades been devalued, but the very idea of what constitutes "higher education" has been debased in recent times. Unfortunately, so too has high school education so whatever apparent economic benefit seems to accrue to college grads may be relative only. Not only have colleges proliferated "studies" programs without intellectual depth or cohesiveness but students' freedom to choose" has often resulted in a potpourri of courses, rather than an education.
I recall from even 1987, a skeptical analysis of the academic record of a distinguished graduate of Princeton, a school for which I have personal fondness since I did my graduate work in physics there (although I confess to having been a graduate of Columbia, whence this contempt originated):
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/15/opinion/at-princeton-they-call-it-an-education.html
The point was the following: "That education apparently contained no courses in classical studies (history,philosophy, literature of the ancient world), medieval history, modern history or American history; no hard science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy) requiring any kind of lab; no math; no anthropology; no economics; no political science or government; no basic sociology; no world literature; no American literature; no geography; not even computer literacy."
One can easily envisage a "triple major" in Women's Studies, Black Studies and Middle Eastern Studies with no knowledge of anything more than the Princeton grad of 1987. Perhaps effort and resources are better expended on improving math, science and computer instruction in high schools and getting back at least to the classical idea of a "liberal education" in arts AND SCIENCES as well as more substantive training for the modern world.****
One can only wonder at the great secretiveness about President Obama's academic records. In light of the broadly claimed idea that he is highly educated, some would be interested to learn what he actually studied and, even, how he did.