Consider the possible changes in the educational system that would be possible, nay, inevitable, if there were no money involved. Currently, there are two major motivations for getting an education: the first is to go deeper into something you are interested in or passionate about, and the second is to prepare yourself for a career, i.e., to make the most money possible. As an artist with lots of scientific curiosity, I can personally attest to the power of the first motivation.
In my youth in the 1960s, I and most of my peers felt that elementary school was for acquiring basic skills, and secondary school (through college) was for a "well-rounded" education. Unless you were planning to go to graduate school and pursue a career in academia, education was definitely not job training. The well-roundedness was for creating a cultured person who could thrive in many fields.
Typically, one's parents thought differently. Their fear was that by pursuing these largely useless fields, their children would be consigning themselves to lives of poverty (or teaching, which amounts to a slightly better-respected brand of poverty) and that they had better be planning for what their lifelong careers would be.
Both camps were secretly afraid of getting the wrong sort of education and ending up in a job one hated, because it was too expensive to go back and do it over. This is an instance of financial constraints channeling lives willy-nilly. If you were in a job you hated, you probably would not advance along the career track and would live a life of mediocrity and quiet desperation. And for many people, that describes their lives today. But times were changing, and many others have had several careers as their interests have changed, or what they originally pursued turned out to be a dying field.
It's pretty easy to see the underlying financial motives behind these paradigms, but what if money were not part of the equation?
First of all, it's obvious that kids are learning machines. They start out curious about everything, and usually as they grow older, become focused on just a few subjects. But then the pressure begins from parents, teachers, and society in general to pick their field, get the right education, get on the career track, and live happily ever after.
The problem is that not everybody (and probably nobody) successfully makes this choice right out of high school, because the fact is that people frequently continue to change interests as they go through life. The most courageous find ways to change careers; the rest have hobbies. Once again, the problem is money. Remember that I said that it's too expensive to do your education over? Another problem with a career change is that because you have attained a certain standard of living, you now have to make a certain amount of money to maintain it, and changing careers would probably mean that you're going to have to start over at the bottom rung of the ladder with a major pay cut and a drastically reduced standard of living. If you have kids to support, that may be impossible altogether. Career and child raising are, unfortunately, joined at the hip.
Without money constraints, all those linkages and inter-dependencies are broken. The concentrated curriculum is no longer necessary. On-the-job training starts to make sense again. Has anyone else noticed that being a graduate assistant looks an awful lot like an apprenticeship? Apprenticeship works fabulously even today. It's just that if you're wearing a suit, we now call it "Mentorship".
The basics of education could be limited to ways to interface the learning machines (kids or adults) to the media of information transmission. It looks like we're back to the Three Rs. Probably should have never left in the first place. After that the learners just follow their curiosity until it's time for apprenticeship where some guidance is added into the mix. That model should work all the way from agriculture to brain surgery and everything in between.