I do not believe that the comment above is about the effectiveness, but merely stating facts here. University "sticker prices" are often inflated to maintain prestige and very often supplemented with grants and financial aid based on income. Opaque pricing is never a good thing, but there are two sides this story.

Reports like those are not great for people trying to understand data and solve problems. They're for bureaucrats. They're always full of aggregation errors, which is also a common problem many people often get frustrated with from armchair experts. People __should__ be suspicious when reading that the average price paid for college is $2.5k but student debt is almost $2T and the average student debt is nearly $40k. The way the data is presented should cause people to be suspicious because the narrative doesn't make sense. The problem is with the narrative around these numbers, which is how people "lie with statistics" (because math isn't just numbers, data analysis is about stories).

A good way to think about this, and why it should reason that this data at face value isn't useful, is with a rather extreme example. If you took the average income across the globe then you'd conclude that no one could afford college. But that'd be unreasonable because the distribution of incomes is not the same as the distribution of people going to college.

Similarly, in these types of numbers there's a large difference in groups. In fact, contrary to popular belief, those straddled with the most debt are not liberal arts degrees for people with low job prospects but rather high level education of and high prospect jobs. Graduates take out more loans[0]. Medical students take out by far the most[1] -- side note: maybe we should discuss this given the doctor shortage -- followed by PhDs and then masters. Obviously these are in lower numbers though But there are a lot of variables at play here that affect things and it should be rather obvious that you can't treat all these things equally. There are also other issues where private colleges have higher debt burdens and there's also a lot of dubious institutions taking advantage of people (which do we want that happening for people who are specifically trying to become more productive members of society? The most vulnerable are also the "least productive" and even small changes can result in large outcomes).

[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/who-owes-all-that-student...

[1] https://wordsrated.com/student-loan-debt-by-degree-statistic...

According to the US Dept of Education a 4 year Bachelor degree at Western Michigan University will cost at least $110,001. Certainly this is too high.

> These are probably emergent effects of capitalism.

Regulated, subsidized capitalism. If insurance was only for catastrophic losses, and all premiums (government, employee and employer paid) were instead paid into things like health savings accounts, network and oligopolistic effects would start to disappear. Maybe not disappear entirely, but instead of locking people into networks the effort would go into marketing their networks as 'the best'.

You could also fiddle with pharmaceutical costs by allowing the patent monopolies to exist until a certain amount of revenue is collected from the patent, and then negate the patent. Instead of the current system with time-limited patents. This would massively disincentivize a lot of pharma-to-physician marketing (at least until the patent expires). Though there would still be some incentive to profit before the next drug comes out that makes yours irrelevant.

Room and Board is a significant factor. See figure CP-9. Through the entire period, RB exceeds $10k/yr, as compared to ~$3k/yr for tuition. That's 3x the cost!

I would not say that I cherry-picked from my source; the argument expressly is that *published* tuition numbers are meaningless, because few students pay them. The correct number to use is tuition net of Grant Aid, which is also listed in figure CP-9, and hits my $2,500/yr. The $1.63 trillion debt level does make sense when most students do use loan money to pay their room and board, and do so for 4 or more years.

Obviously, some families do save money to cover college costs, so most students aren't taking out 20k+ worth of loans each here, but the driver is not the expenses of the colleges. Indeed, if you look at Figures SA-1 and CP-11A, you can see that when college affordability became newsworthy, as loan amounts went up by over 75% is exactly when states were slashing support for students, during the Great Recession, between 2006-2010. Since then, states have been restoring funding, and loans are down. Many state college tuition rates have been flat or flat in real dollars for the last decade. As an example, the UC system had completely flat tuition rates for 4 straight years, and now guarantees each student that they will not be subject to tuition increases during their undergraduate education, and will pay a flat rate.

Yes, but it's not where most actually go. 75% of degrees are awarded by public colleges and universities.

> Talking about "public" and "in-state" is not the point.

I think the point is about access to higher education.

> College is mostly about the private institutions at a national level. That's where people would like to go.

Where people would "like to go" is highly subjective, and the statistics would wildly disagree with your statement on where people actually go.

Your numbers support parent's argument. It's an unsecured loan to 18 year olds, given in identical fashion at institutions where non-graduation rates are substantial.

Those rates should clearly be higher than the rates for Americam mortgages, which, after all, have down payments and are secured by the most privileged asset in the history of the world.