> I can’t think of a reason why the number of gender studies students would increase under a universal higher education system for qualified students.
It's fairly simple--if you incentivize people to do something, they are more likely to do it. If universities start offering degrees in Starcraft or beer brewing or marijuana cultivation, there will not be many students if the students are responsible for paying. If they have a free ride regardless of what they choose, more of them will choose them despite unfeasible economic prospects.
It's not absolutist, either--the easier you make it to pay (like by guaranteeing federal loans for lenders), the more you will see. Even if it does load them with a lot of debt. And that's what we've been seeing.
> Europe does not appear to be overwhelmed by gender studies graduates.
They don't need to be overwhelmed--just creating a lot more than the market demands. And gender studies is just one example, of course. The root problem is subsidizing and turning out graduates who are then unsuited for the market in which they intend to find work, and the lost opportunity cost of those who would have been more successful entering the workforce instead (and perhaps attending college later with a broadened perspective).
> Given the sexual harassment problem at Google, Uber, etc perhaps it would be good for there to be an increase in gender studies.
Maybe, but the market would provide those incentives. How many gender studies graduates do Google and Uber need? If they're not hiring, do gender studies graduates working a coffee shop help solve the problem?
> California has free higher education until Reagan became governor. It worked well then and provided it is only available to qualified students I don’t see why it can’t work now.
It depends on how you define "well," and any redistributive program can "work" well enough until it runs out of someone else's money.