This is what they vote for, so this is what they get. Tough cookies.

I knew that this was a big problem over 25 years ago when I noticed that it was no longer possible for a student to self fund an education at a state school by working full time in the summer and during vacations and part time during school.
When I went to college (1974-1978)full tuition and fees for a semester of undergrad were just a little over 200.00. Books would cost you another fifty to 100 bucks.

I could work as a cocktail waitress at my uncle's bar and restaurant during Christmas break and make 600 dollars, that was 2 bucks an hour plus tips. I could make all my living expenses during the summer break.

By about 1985, costs had risen so much, that a student paying as they went, even at a state university was impossible. It has gotten way worse since then.

"Yes, more money has been made available to pay for education. But that new money has also seemed to contribute to a faster growth rate in school fees."

Somehow, I don't think we ought to be startled by that revelation. Doesn't easier money carry the risk of inflation?

And anyway, shouldn't we as a nation have seen this mess coming? It's one thing to say everyone has a right to go to college. How did that translate into the idea that everyone should? When did it become acceptable to suggest that students run up enormous personal debt that they couldn't possibly pay off, whether they earned a degree or not? What made the idea attractive to prospective students?

I never had a dime in loans for myself - I started before Isabel1130. I got the government to pay for the last half of my degree the old fashioned way. (It's not too late, you too can join the wartime military, and your odds are better today. I think the benefits are better, too.)

I do still have about three years to go paying off the loans I took out to help my kids through college.

Griggs vs Duke Power made a degree a requirement for many good jobs. The Universities loaded up on administrators and research, and raised tuitions because they could. The government made the loans non-dischargeable in bankrupcy. The kids who earned useless degrees are protesting Wall Street - proof they didn't get the educations they paid for.

MarkD, I also benefited from the military thing. I was in ROTC during college, and that paid a hundred dollars a month my junior and senior year. After seven years active duty, GI benefits paid for many of my law school expenses.

It's one thing to say everyone has a right to go to college. How did that translate into the idea that everyone should?

The attractiveness of college was that people who graduated from college made more money and were generally held in higher esteem (i.e., they were considered smarter and of a higher social class).

However, I'd be curious to see the earning statistics today ... with the licensed trades compared to the social science and liberal arts undergraduate degree holders. Let's see if a gender studies or social sciences major earns more than an electrician or plumber.

The trick to "getting a living" is to make yourself useful in the world.

Gender studies majors are really only useful as students (headcount), and then only to the professor and/or the department (more students = more funding). Once graduated, most of them have passed their sell-by dates already.

Better they had gotten a basic liberal arts degree for the education and joined an apprenticeship program for actual job training.

Keep in mind that the required minimum skill level for advanced trades is increasing, so a college-level education is going to be necessary to succeed at almost any trade that pays well.

People who drop out of high school or graduate functionally illiterate or innumerate are dooming themselves.

Students and parents are responsible (now more than ever) to make sure the student is actually getting an education. Too many don't realize that they've been had until the high school "graduate" can't find a job or even fill out an application.

Pops may have grown up knowing that pie are round, but junior had better know that πr2.

By about 1985, costs had risen so much, that a student paying as they went, even at a state university was impossible. It has gotten way worse since then.

I don't know. I went to a state school and it wasn't horrendously overpriced. That was in 94-98. Granted, my parents paid for most of it, but I could've afforded it on my own. I saw the costs and I wasn't going to refuse the help to allow me to not have to work as much time, but it would've been doable.

Of course, it depends on which "state school" you look at. I was originally going to go to UCSD after community college but eventually switched to SDSU instead. Despite the air of how the UC schools are supposedly so much better, I went the route I did for specific reasons. I had started to get to know people from both schools, talked to counselors, etc. What I started to notice was that UCSD tended to output a lot of people very smart in the theory (I'm in computer science) but who tended to have a harder time actually producing from that. I began to learn that UCSD was very heavy on theory, writing up papers and testing, but SDSU did the theory, then you went down to the lab and actually created the end result, a lot more hands on. Over the years on the job, I've tended to find a far higher percentage of UC grads that fall into this category then those from "less prestigious" schools.

Don't be fooled. States with Lotto earnings don't put them into colleges. Other tuition rose in Georgia to pay for the Hope scholarships, too.

Shell game.

Again: if you don't pay, you're not the customer, you're the product.

"Gender studies majors are really only useful as students (headcount), and then only to the professor and/or the department (more students = more funding). Once graduated, most of them have passed their sell-by dates already."

It's even worse than that... most of the XYZ Studies students have been mal-educated. They've been taught a bunch of stuff that isn't true, and infused with a nihilist philosophy that makes them maladjusted for life in the real world. Even if their education had been free, they would have been better off not going.

The idea behind student loans was that the government would help students get an education they otherwise couldn't afford. But it hasn't worked out that way.

A government program where the results are other than what was intended?

What are the odds of *that* happening?

I was listening to talk radio over the weekend -- there was a caller saying he couldn't afford college without government backed student loans.

He couldn't grasp the concept that the college tuition increase coincided with the government backed college loan programs.

Another example of the federal government distorting the market.

I can't recall where I heard it, but I was watching a documentary or reading a commentary where they were discussing that the increase of government funds was proportional to the increase in fees. In short, government funds can only cover a portion of the fees, as opposed to the entire thing, forcing you to take out loans.

I worked my way through undergrad, and although took out loans, it wasn't too strenuous ~$12K after 4 years). I'm sure if I planned adequately, I wouldn't have had that much.

What I don't appreciate is that my younger sister is going to the same school where I obtained my law degree, and her loans will most likely higher than mine. I graduated from the state school in 2001. She'll graduate in 2012. That's only one decade.

Another issue is that we are the only country with "For Profit" schools. Makes it seem like you have to go to school, since people who couldn't get into a 4-year university, there are other schools that you can still go to. Seems like education becomes forced.