Response:
1) The reality is (at least in my corner of the higher education system) that most students attend college because of a perceived (either by themselves or their parents) economic benefit of the degree. Problem is - there is no guarantee of economic benefit.
2) Once again, I would argue that college attendance, in and of itself, is no guarantee of social mobility and/or equality. A Harvard, Yale degree - probably. The local community college or tiny liberl arts college - more questionable.
3) A college degree can still mean you are a member of the working class. Isn't middle class defined by income, not profession?
4) Does the question "Are too many students going to college?" refer to inequality or lack of preparedness and direction in college students? I believe it is the latter. I would also argue that the lack of preparedness can be overcome within the college setting if the drive and desire it present. And being admitted to college should not mean a promise of a degree, just the opportunity to EARN the degree.
5) Why do you interpret the question in this manner? Why would/should a life option become a right?
6) If we want a more open system that allow access despite ability/preparedness, then we must be comfortable with the inevitable increase in failure. But, that is not necessarily a good thing. Education is about figuring out what we should and should not do. There is a reason I am not an organic chemist. I worked very hard for my C+, and in the process learned that was not my passion and career. Let's work on removing the stigma of failure, as well as the stigma of average. Most of us are average in most things in life. And that is just fine. Many will attend college, and some will complete. And that is just fine. If you want the degree enough, you will persevere.

@rchill:
Do you really believe the last thing you wrote-- that if only you "want" the degree enough, you'll manage to get it? This implies that the college dropout rate has much to do with individual motivation/desire. I'd be more open to that possibility if we didn't see such major inequities in dropout-- those would have to be attributable to gender, race, and class differences in "desire"-- such differences would be quite hard to account for.
Sara G-R

goldrick: yes I do. It may take longer than you anticipated, you may have to modify your ultimate goal along the way - you may end up starting and stopping, attending >1 college to achieve your goal, but given passion and drive, goals happen.
Back to you - how do you see gender, race and class differences impacting desire? Desire comes in all sexes, races and economic circumstances.

@rchill:

Exactly, desire crosses boundaries. That's precisely why I do not think desire (or lack thereof) is a key driver of poor completion rates-- if it were, we wouldn't see the massive disparities in those rates (e.g. by gender, race, and SES) that we do.

I have no doubt that some people attend college as an experiment (to quote Manski), and determine they don't want it enough. That could contribute to a completion rate

Somehow the rest of my comment got cut off-- the rest of it basically said, "a completion rate of less than 100%" but it wouldn't account for disparities (given that I doubt the proportion of experimenters varies substantially according to ascriptive characteristics).

I'm coming over to the view that an open system, perhaps as free as high school as far as direct fees are concerned, should be taken as a serious possibility. One advantage is that there might be less pressure to debase the content. Another is that even incomplete attendance might raise up the general level. There would then have to be a right to *access* college, not a right to *graduate*.

The consequences of such openness might be easier to measure over the long term. Consider communities where college-going is not ingrained; one generation getting its feet wet, if only for a term or two, might lead to the next generation being encouraged to go. Certain work habits might be appreciated anew, while, conversely, the allure of higher education might be somewhat demystified. And this demystification might also make it easier for newcomers to try out a semester or two before deciding they can't cut it; indeed, I agree there shouldn't be a stigma, and the more higher ed is demystified, the easier it would become to place performance in college classes in context. Finally, let me suggest that an exposure to college could also improve outcomes for the working the same way high school benefited both the graduates who took up white-collar positions and blue-collar workers who often ended up in better positions than otherwise.

But goldrick - if you have the desire and the drive, you DO complete. You overcome the disparities, whatever the source of those disparities. You get the remedial work, go part-time if full-time is too expensive, work to put yourself through, study constantly. WHatever it takes, you do it.
We need to remove the stigma of not "doing it". Sometimes our goals change, our needs change. The effort entailed does not equal the satisfaction of completion. Once we are in a discipline, we realize it is not for us. Whatever the reason, changing your mind is not a bad thing, for the student or the institution. College is as much about figuring out what we don't want to do as it is about determining what we do want to do.

Hmm ... As some of the extended blog comments on the related article note, and this comment pinpoints, many of us are simply asking the wrong questions, in part because we make -- in many cases -- unsubstantiated assumptions. When I went to high school, many 'dropped out' because they could pursue their ambitions or opportunities without completing school and getting a graduation certificate. Some went on to graduate, and go to college. Again, of those going to college, many 'dropped out' because they could pursue their lives without further classes or a piece of paper. Many of the arguments for opening up college for more students - with some arguing it should be a 'right' that someone else pays for - seem based on the assumption that one 'needs' college courses to become a better citizen, or obtain a better job. The longer I live, and the more college classes I attend (I've gotten an AB, a JD, and taken graduate courses as well as continuing education at community colleges, private colleges, and numerous seminars), the more I believe that formal education, in and of itself, is next to worthless - what counts most is what you - the student - put into it. I'm of the opinion that we should bolster K-12 education 1st -- we simply are 'graduating' many who are not capable of taking advantage of any 'higher' education. There are far too many 'remedial' students -- they both could & should have achieved better levels of proficiency in language and thinking skills (comprehension & analysis) - including mathematics as a specialized 'language.' Much of what is 'taught' at 'higher' education can be better learned by being able to read and engage peers, colleagues, neighbors, and fellow travelers in 'real world' settings. For far too many, post-high school institutional enrollment is simply a way station keeping them out of the job market, and delaying their real development. Yes, there is now more evidence that we don't become completely capable of truly 'rational' thought until about 25 (our brains don't get completely knit together until then), but there are plenty of teenagers that can and do achieve 'beyond their years' when given the chance. If the argument is that you need much more training to get a job - then all you are saying is that 'higher' education is simply extended vocational training: and from my more than half-a-century experience, that is often done better 'on the job.' Give people 'real world' experience and 'real world' context, and lo & behold, their 'real world' education (the 'school of hard knocks') is more meaningful for them -- and for the rest of us.