Presumably this would either eliminate certain jobs over time or limit those who go into those fields to a given financial class. Smells a little too much like central economy planning to some.

There probably aren't even enough jobs in "in-demand" majors to make that worthwhile anyway (or there soon won't be). I suspect the number of college-necessary skilled jobs is going down but the number of McJobs that will require a degree merely as a filter is going up.

I think we're over looking the fact that it shouldn't cost 100k for a liberal arts degree.

You literally read books, one of the oldest technologies and write papers getting on. You have professors, but your tuition isn't really going to your professors. As a philosophy major I spent most of my time in buildings a hundred years old (had no projectors or computers) reading texts that were free from the library. I would have preferred that my tuition just paid for that building and my professors instead of the armies of administrative assistants and provosts.

There probably should be higher requirements. At my undergraduate the business degree was hard to get into. The english or philosophy degree just required you to tell someone.

I think knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a good on its own, but when you're paying that much, and everyone is all vying for limited academic positions, it doesn't make sense.

It just wouldn't be an issue if tuition for majors was actually closer to the cost of actually being taught.

> Why not limit federal aid and student loans to "in-demand" majors?

Consider how politicized this would become. Also consider that demand for a major is a lagging indicator.

Are we filtering millions of people each year into a handful of majors? What happens to these industries when that many individuals enter the workforce? Do we keep cycling through the majors as demand shifts?

What about people who drop out of their studies for whatever reason?

great idea. just add some bounds checking to who can receive a loan!