Excellent point. I'd also add that it's important to look at this from the giver's (i.e. government's) perspective. It's beneficial for society if everyone is educated. Yes, there will be some who take the opportunity and do nothing with it to benefit either themselves or others. There will also be some who use it not only to enrich themselves but also to enrich society and even improve the economy. If the "hits" outweigh the "misses" then it's a good investment overall. Much like VC, in fact. Most startups fail, but a few succeed to a degree (heh) that makes up for it. Sometimes it's worth taking a risk on people.

> Why does a degree have to be financially wise?

It doesn't, and I didn't suggest that it does.

> Do people become social workers for the money? Do teachers get into teaching for the money?

I don't know, but I suspect that most full-time social workers who are not independently wealthy do consider wages when deciding where to work. The trouble is that you seem to be implying a strict dichotomy between "doing it for the money" and "not doing it for the money." In reality, many people pursue careers that they enjoy to some extent, but they also require some level of compensation for survival and quality of life.

> simply for being financially wise

If everyone were 'simply financially wise,' those who were <actually> financially wise wouldn't be paying for 2008.

I think you're onto something. As you say, it is simple, just not easy.

> Why does a degree have to be financially wise

For the same reason anything is considered wise, wisdom lead you to the conclusion upon which you act. Majoring in sociology with no intention of practicing sociology is not wise, unless you have another plan. If you DO intend to practice, you should have a plan. The internet at college is free, make a plan.