Higher education is about being exposed to various ways of thinking and discovering your own interests, passion & voice. If they are only valued by the metric of training to be a good worker, you've missed the plot. My formal education is a BFA in Sculpture. It's opened many doors simply because it trained my mind to explore and see relationships where no obvious ones might exist. While I've gotten one-off gigs, there wasn't a straight career path other than academics, hollywood or the gallery scene. None of which appealed to me. We have a nation of dumb and dumber equated and at times elevated above subject matter experts. If you think that colleges and universities are not competitive against each other, it's more a reflection of your experience then that of a broader truth.
Especially when you understand that a couple who earns 250k (under the 125k per person amount) can get loan relief.
First, I don't begrudge anyone to take whatever degree they want to take. Just don't ask me to pay for it. Don't come to me complaining that you spent 100k on a Sculpture degree, are unable to find a job to pay back your loans, complain that you were misled, and then ask me to fund (through higher taxes) your degree. And incidentally, you - specifically - don't seem to be doing this. But many, many people are. You say not to judge a degree on whether someone can be a good worker, but the ability to pay for that degree is directly linked to whether that person can be a good worker - or perceived to be. That's how you pay a loan, you have to have money, which requires a job. Second, please back up in some manner colleges being competitive against each other in pricing. Because the below chart (with the exception of the pandemic year) is not indicative of highly competitive pricing strategy.
Thanks for the Visual Capitalist link, it's such great content. Let's see what I can find. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-student-debt-does-each-state-hold/
A comparison of college tuitions; https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/top-100-us-colleges-ranked-large.html
The problem starts with our parasite class, the shareholders, aka moneylenders. They expect to be fed and housed merely because they rent money to, in this case, our youth. (Come to think of it, private property must precede moneylending. Hmm...)
An excellent graphic. But what we're trying to prove/disprove is that colleges are competitive with each other on pricing in order to attract business. My belief/argument is that, because they are supported by loan policies that target students and government policy that prohibits discharging of those loans, they can charge whatever they want - and do.
Firstly, I'm not saying I disagree with any of that. But do you concur that someone lending money, or renting a house, is entitled to some margin of profit for the effort?
Well they benefit mostly the rich and corporations. Tax cuts always attract votes because voters mostly are too stupid to look and see where the cuts really go. But even a middle class person will get some minor tax relief. Same as loan forgiveness. We can guess it will mostly benefit democrat voters but plenty of GOP/Indepdent voters also will get loans forgiven so these moves are to solidify a base and grab the extra fruit. Tax cuts instead of addressing tax reform loan forgiveness instead of addressing high price of college and how it is financed. Just easier to pass a headline policy for the votes and move on to the next soundbite.
You certainly have valid concerns and criticisms. After re-reading what you wrote, I would agree that there are structurally mis-aligned incentives. Not being able to include student loans in a bankruptcy is an additional example. However, charging "whatever" they want is a bit hyperbole.