The whole tuition thing bothers me, even here. Tuition has increased far faster than inflation, and the root cause is greater governmental financial assistance, by enabling individuals to pay more, at the same "cost" to themselves, colleges have been relatively free to raise prices--which begins the endless cycle of "college is too expensive-->increased financial aid-->increased tuition-->college is too expensive"
In a freer market, colleges could compete to offer the greatest ROI--which they did up until 10-20 years ago. The very most expensive colleges were the ones that had, statistically the highest post-graduate salaries (the good Ivy's, MIT, Caltech, etc)...now with tuition inflation, small liberal arts schools have shot up, while yielding effectively the same post-grad return, leaving many in a pit of debt, and the rest of the country picking up the tab...for instance, since when did Pell grants start being for middle class? (50% go to those significantly above the poverty line)...simple, when it became a way to buy baby boomer votes by financing their kids.
Simple example: MIT was 25-30k/yr back in the 90's, and mean starting salary was 50-60k for graduates...now it's 45k ish, and mean starting is 75k. (mean starting = 1.5x annual cost)
There are liberal arts colleges that have similar 40-45k costs...do you think their graduates earn a mean of 75k plus with a BS/BA?
This whole "everyone should go to college" push, and the denigration of for-profit schools and certificate programs has resulted in increased resources spent on those who are going to take advantage of it, an over-credentialed society, and a lack of workers in non-degree but high salary fields (technical services, e.g. Electricians, welders, machinists, etc). We all got lost on the way and turned "someone should be able to find a way to go to college, if that's what they want and it's the right decision" to "everyone goes to college". One strategy I was proud of being a part of was MIT's "guaranteed need" program--if you got in, they made sure you can go by calculating what you can afford, and making up the shortfall between the cost and your input (plus any fed programs you qualified for) with MIT money--in effect, when I went, half the students paid for the other half--it's the only way I was able to go (we had little money when I was growing up). By doing it themselves, they staked their finances on students being able to earn enough to make it worthwhile, as half were paying the whole stake, and if it wasn't worth it, they would lose that half. And it worked...those of us who had the need were (in my experience and observing others) the ones who worked the hardest--we knew what the burden was (on our folks, ourselves, and other students) and maximized the return.
Contrast this to students on major fed aid, at uber-expensive liberal arts schools--where 4 yrs is not even the standard time to earn a degree anymore! Why leave? Someone else is paying!
The extended college time with someone else footing the bill merely extends adolescence and postpones productivity.
Read "hard America, soft America", the author contrasts 50's through 90's American youth/post college aduts with European equivalents (as they have had more of a welfare state for longer)...I have a feeling the good things he cites about America are disappearing, and the tuition escalation/long adolesence is a big factor. His basic thesis is that in America we coddle our you, but then throw them into the real world post-college (quote from friends after Monica cuts up Rachels credit cards "welcome to the real world, it sucks...you are gonna love it"), thus creating hard post-college adults...in Europe, primary/secondary school is usually harder than in the US, but then they are thrown into a welfare state--creating softer post-university adults. I fear that may be over.
The friends quite is telling...compare TV depictions of 20's folks now to 10 years ago...now it's extended adolescence...then the characters had money problems, and to work, find jobs, etc.
