The Cruel Angel's Thesis

Papers on topics in areas such as science, politics, sociology, philosophy, and others are often reserved for higher education, graduate school or above, or by professors or above.  While the expertise and experience given by spending years in college and gaining a title are noteworthy, why should they exclude those who do not have so many years dedicated to schooling but still carry valid views that can be expressed?

I believe that beginning college, high school, and even grade school students can produce excellent, thought provoking papers and essays that can be groundbreaking works in themselves.  Instead, these are passed off as graded opinions that are never seen again.  While the majority of these papers are unlearned, inexperienced, or unprofessional, surely there are a few who break ground and exceed the statements in professional papers and essays.

Can excellent papers produced below a "professional" level still be considered as important contributions to society?  Or must people always believe that only someone with a higher level degree is worthy of having public opinion?

The real importance of status lies the level of attention it is reasonable to spend on what somebody has to say. The quality of many things isn't apparent at first sight. In an unfiltered world where attention span is short, the focus will shift towards what can be immediatly understood - small mental steps instead of big ones - a form of lowest common denominator.

This is the case on the internet. Where it is not, I believe, it is not due to evolved social or technological structures, but due to a temporary effect in which the focus groups adopt a certain technology faster than others.