[cgearhart]

The Supply/Demand analysis of college degrees assumes that education is a fungible commodity. In some ways that's true -- because many technical skills developed in pursuit of a degree are intended to be generally applicable. But there is also broad economic value in an educated population beyond the instantaneous value of the credential. A college education is about creating value by obtaining an education.

The central challenge of college today is not that everyone is going, but that everyone is going into so much debt to do it. Most people will be able to service their debt (in part thanks to the higher average earnings they'll realize), but it is coming at the cost of delaying other purchases. New grads can't afford new cars, houses, weddings, children, or savings. And the fraction of borrowers who can't afford their debt become a drag on the economy because it is so difficult to discharge.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> But there is also broad economic value in an educated population beyond the instantaneous value of the credential. A college education is about creating value by obtaining an education.

Even if we assume this is true, none of your claims follow.

If it costs X to educate 10% of the population, it takes more than 2X to educate 20%. And that's only if the population is static. The population has increased since 1960, especially in the demographic we're discussing.

It's not so bad down in the 10% and 20% range, but once we start talking about universal college, it quickly becomes expensive.

> The central challenge of college today is not that everyone is going, but that everyone is going into so much debt to do it.

Costs have ballooned. No longer is it some spartan experience for the nation's managerial and elite classes, before they run off to their lives of gold-plated yachts and spas where they bathe in the tears of orphans.

Now college is something everyone's entitled too, and the dorm rooms no longer pack 4 students into something that looks like a closet. All those new buildings... someone must pay for them.

The price would be roughly the same even if those weren't paid with by loans, but rather with grants.

And since there is no relief from lowered enrollment, prices will stay high.

> Most people will be able to service their debt (in part thanks to the higher average earnings they'll realize),

Only the graduates. You should look at how many drop out after $20,000 or $50,000 worth of student loan debt. This number is significant, I do not know if it's half, but it's close enough.

This isn't a problem that can be fixed with "but those goshdarned republicans broke things, we need to return to the 1960s-era quasi-socialism and it will all go back to normal!". Those policies worked because so few attended college, attended colleges that were much different (and fewer) than today, and were already well within the upper middle class anyway.

[cgearhart]

> ...none of your claims follow.

That was my claim. To wit, that a college education is more valuable than the credential.

> If it costs X to educate 10% of the population, it takes more than 2X to educate 20%.

Why would the cost of providing education to more people increase as a multiple of the baseline costs?

> And since there is no relief from lowered enrollment, prices will stay high.

Restricting enrollment would increase costs as there is more competition among prospective students for the service. Students would have to outbid each other, not merely outperform each other to secure a spot.

> Now college is something everyone's entitled too... [sic]

An education is what we should entitle them to. As you note, colleges have been locked for decades in a competition for students by investing in new buildings, amenities, and sports with no regard for the effect on costs because of the price inelasticity of demand. And it has been a safe investment because student loans & grants have been so readily available.

The best price controls available to us are exercised by holding the institutions accountable for certain outcomes (like excessive dropout & loan default rates), by providing an equivalent service at a lower cost (something like Obama's "free community college" option), and by making student loan debt dischargeable like most other debts. The ready availability of capital is part of what has driven up costs.

> You should look at how many drop out after $20,000 or $50,000 worth of student loan debt.

The national graduation rate was approximately 60% in 2012 [1], while the national student load default rate was 13.7% in 2014 [2]. Students who do not graduate are several times more likely to end up in default, but it is still a manageable risk overall for investors because student loans are so difficult to discharge and because most people will eventually pay them back, and still worth it for students because they still have a positive net ROI.

[1] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/national-stude...