It’s impossible to work your way through college nowadays

>Here's another graph showing that the recent rise in tuition in Michigan is due to declining state education appropriations.

>http://i.imgur.com/5gYHQK5.png

====================================

DING DING DING! Why did I have to scroll to the bottom to see this? As far as I'm concerned this is the major symptom that few people ever look at, much less ever try to think of a root cause for.

The states, nearly all of which have to "balance the budget" every budget period, have to find ways to make cuts when economic downturns hit. Seeing as so much of what used to be the purview of the state has been captured by the private sector under the guise of "we can do it better, just let us handle it," the only major expense left to the state other than healthcare is education.

When legislatures are faced with a choice of cutting Healthcare or Education, which one do you think is going to get the bigger axe? Which demographic does more voting? The not-of-age children and teenagers? The politically charged college students that paradoxically never seem to actually make it to the voting booth? Their parents perhaps? The same ones that love to hate on public education and talk about how terrible it is? Or... Is it the hundreds of thousands of individuals that rely on the state for medical assistance in one way or another?

It's not a surprise at all that education gets the short end of the stick. It is the politically expedient answer in the face of economic downturns, when already-stretched state social programs are tasked further still. But the real clincher is this: the state legislatures know that the federal government will pick up the tab; it is ultimately the guarantor of the loans it issues. Better yet, since the liabilities were shifted onto the students individually, the state legislatures don't even look like they had to seek the help of the Big Government they're all so keen to hate! And best of all, thanks to the continued infusion of capital from the federal government, their state institutions actually have the outward appearance of growth: new buildings, renovations, fancy stadiums and gyms and elite professors.

Of course, this is all on the backs of young students. And as a young 20-something, I'd like to know why the federal government agreed to balance states' budgets on the backs of its youths at all, much less without price controls. Just who is benefiting from such a laissez-faire attitude? It certainly doesn't feel like I am.

It's also hard to get a degree in most arts (eg. fine arts, dance, drama, and music) without physical interactions and without access to the physical resources that a university can provide. Yet that doesn't fall under any of your 5 categories. Perhaps #4 is the closest, but you argue that it's only really relevant to hard science or engineering.

Your last bit sounds more utopian than with basis in reality. I don't see why it's any harder to contact leading lights in chemistry, biology, mathematics, philosophy, history, or poetry than it is hackers. Nor do I believe many of those leading lights - hackers included - really want to engage in much unpaid "learning opportunity" to strangers.

In the US at least, my understanding is that it's relatively easy for college students to get loans to pay for their education (I have several US citizens friends who did that and repaid their loans over the years), so this amounts to easy credit. When free money is available, prices tend to go up, and the more government steps in to provide low rates kind of loans to students, the more the universities can increase and inflate their prices because the supply of cheap credit increases. It's a well known mechanism in economics.