The data includes only the public colleges and universities, but it may not be much different for private. Public Institutions may have different constraints then private schools, particularly the upper echelon of well-endowed schools, which may choose to play the tuition game differently. Public institution tuition increased 44% over the ten year period ending 2008. Say private school tuition was 40K in 2008, then on average it would have been 28 K ten years earlier to be comparable. I have no data on the private schools however. The 44% increase over ten years in public universities actually lags consumer inflation over the same period by a small amount.
I agree with a lot of your post. The problem is that with the vast majority of for-profit type students you can rule out the "prudent" descriptor. These for-profits target, specifically, a lower-income, financially unsophisticated population. These "schools" advertise on TV shows like Maury, and all those Judge Whatever concoctions. They know exactly who they're going after, and it's NOT the people who are candidates for State colleges and universities. For-profits compete with each other, not state colleges. They are promising jobs galore in fields that pay $12-15 an hour to start, and in most cases are unlikely to rise more than a few dollars an hour. Here in the Midwest, Medical Assistants, for example, start at around $14 an hour. Very few, without additional training, can look forward to making more than $16 dollars an hour or so. I'd agree that a degree from the UC system or most State colleges and universities is worth pursuing, depending of course, upon the program. But for-profits? Almost always, no. Ok, I'll stop ranting now; my apologies, and thanks for everyone's indulgence!