[potatolicious]

You have a good point - my question would be why the studies of feminism and religion carry a $100K price tag. My engineering degree cost about half as much (in Canada, mind you), but is understandably pricy due to the earning potential.

Sure, there is a minimum cost to a degree that may or may not line up with its earning potential... but $100K? How in the world do schools get away with charging that much for a degree whose earning potential is so low?

This whole problem would be a lot less of an issue if degrees cost proportionally (or at least roughly proportionally) to their market value. People who want to study "useless" degrees can do so, and their costs would be likewise much lower than people who want "useful" degrees for employment. Perhaps we'd all be better off as a society this way.

[philwelch]

100K was her total student debt, which is not entirely from tuition and fees but also from living expenses. Living expenses for 4 years in New York can easily exceed 100K on their own. If you skimp and live on campus (which in NYC is probably cheaper than living in town--not true for the rural college I go to) it's going to be less than otherwise, but then you add tuition on top of that.

[houseabsolute]

The charge is based on the cost to deliver. And an unsubsidized private school must naturally pass on a greater portion of this burden to its students.

[Daniel_Newby]

"How in the world do schools get away with charging that much for a degree whose earning potential is so low?"

They charge whatever the market will bear! Apparently there is a large intersection between "rich" and "willing to piss away four years on a nonproductive enterprise". Whodathunkit.