sshepard/E+/Getty Images
This year I am teaching a philosophy class, and my students and I have really enjoyed logic. One of the most perplexing fallacies we discuss is the straw man argument: when someone responds to an argument that no one actually made. My students and I pointed out how counterintuitive it is to go on the defensive about something off-topic. Yet it happens more than we realize.
I started noticing it happening more frequently in conversations about college access. When I tell people that all students deserve fair access to college, the response is often “Not everyone needs to go to college.”
I don’t think anyone disagrees with this statement. Not every student wants or needs a college degree. There are all types of postsecondary options: Trade programs, apprenticeships, military service, certifications, entrepreneurship and employment straight out of high school are all valid and meaningful pathways. Recent conversations about microcredentials reflect efforts to expand opportunity and preparation in new ways.
But all these are separate, often distracting, arguments from the ones college-access advocates are making. Saying all students should have the opportunity to consider college is not the same as saying every student needs to attend. One is about access. The other is about imposition. When the two are confused, the conversation moves away from the access issue, and the question of whether “everyone needs college” becomes a diversion from the intended argument.
The difference between expanding access and prescribing a path played out in my own family. When my great-grandfather passed away, my father took over the family farm straight out of high school. He built a successful life without attending college, and by the time I reached high school, the farm had grown significantly. The assumption was that I would eventually take over the farm. But when my academic interests began to grow and I showed a desire to work in education, my dad encouraged me to explore college. His support did not diminish the value of his own path, nor did it suggest that college was the right choice for everyone. It simply meant that I had the freedom to consider college.
That freedom, the ability to see college as a real option, is at the heart of what college-access advocates are trying to protect. When conversations about college access get pulled into defending noncollege postsecondary paths, that simple goal often gets lost.
Yet conversations about access can often shift suddenly without us realizing. At a National Association for College Admission Counseling Rural and Small Town Special Interest Group session last year, Peggy Jenkins pointed out a pattern that many of us recognized immediately: When we raise questions about expanding access to college, the discussion can quickly turn to defending the value of career and technical education, trade schools, and other pathways. Those options absolutely deserve attention and investment, but they were never under attack in the first place.
By the time we finish clarifying that point, the conversation has already moved away from the original issue: whether students who might benefit from college are receiving the advising, information and support needed to see it as a real option. Instead of focusing on barriers and institutional practices that shape opportunity (or the lack of opportunity), the conversation becomes a defense of CTE or some other postsecondary option. The result of this straw man is mission drift.
The college-access conversation deserves full and undivided attention and still has a long way to go if we want equal opportunity for all students. Data consistently shows disparities in postsecondary enrollment across geography and income, even when academic preparation is similar. In other words, there are certain groups of students who seem to be excluded from the college conversation despite being just as capable of attending and succeeding in college.
In some communities, particularly in rural areas, issues of college access are often closely tied to identity and belonging. In Educated Out: How Rural Students Navigate Elite Colleges—and What It Costs Them (University of Chicago Press, 2025), Mara Casey Tieken describes how narratives of place shape how opportunity is interpreted by students, families and educators. In rural contexts, encouraging students to consider college can sometimes be perceived as questioning local values or traditional expectations. It is important that we respect those perspectives and values without abandoning our efforts to provide all students with the same opportunities as peers in other communities where college feels more attainable.
Expanding access does not rank pathways, and it does not elevate one form of postsecondary education over another. It ensures that students are able to make decisions with a clear understanding of the opportunities available to them. When students can see their options clearly, they are still free to pursue a trade, military service, CTE, immediate employment or another path that aligns with their goals and their lives.
The real question is whether or not every student can consider college as a possible path. When the conversation turns into defending noncollege postsecondary options, the straw man has already done its work. Keeping the focus on college access helps ensure that the real goal remains at the center of the conversation: equal opportunity for all students.
