My point is that it's extraordinarily cheap compared to what I'd expect to pay for a "best in the world" anything else, not that it's affordable.

It would be crazy, I think, to expect a 'best in the world' education without it costing a substantial amount of money.

I'm not saying it's fair to a kid making that decision, and personally, I think that bankruptcy laws are central to civilization. I'm just saying that it's amazing how cheap a 'best in the world' education is.

Certainly, I don't oppose the government just paying for colleges; after all, that's a big part of why Berkeley is so cheaper. I'm just saying that running a good school takes money, and the fact that the best in the world schools (at least by my perception) are so cheap is a counterpoint to this idea that costs are spiraling out of control.

Well, by definition, very few people are best in the world. And we still want most of the rest to get a college education. Not to mention "the best in the world" schools tend to attract students from very wealthy families, who don't need tuition support as much.

>Well, by definition, very few people are best in the world. And we still want most of the rest to get a college education.

Why is that? speaking as someone who doesn't have a college education, I'm fairly certain I would be less wealthy, by a good bit, had I gone to a mediocre school rather than no school at all. I mean, there are non-monetary benefits to school, too, and while I'm looking to go to college now - I just wasn't ready at 17.

It seems to me like the problem is the number of jobs that look for a degree even though college is little more than a class filter for them.

Costs have increased a ton, so unless the quality has also increased a ton, it doesn't seem crazy to expect a "best in the world" education for substantially less money.

And the whole non-computer world matters a lot, here. Most people go their entire lives without ever having the means to buy two high-end cars. Start paying that when you're 18 and the cost of financing goes up substantially, too.

>You have a giant pool of 17-18 year old kids with 0 assets and minimal skills.

No you don't. People who get charged $50k for Stanford (and other top-ranked schools) have enormous family income/wealth, and for better or worse the social contract of our system is that parents contribute to their children's education commensurate to their ability to pay. The only people stuck borrowing the full amount are those whose parents could pay but refuse to.

You do get stuck borrowing that kind of money if you go to an expensive but not very good private school (how much help is available to middle-class kids scales with quality). A middle-class kid borrowing through a state flagship school (who generally gets no assistance) is more like $100k.

Great, but how is that a positive? Stanford is a top level university, but it's simply out of reach for those who cannot afford it. University admissions should be purely merit based in my opinion.

Many elite schools practice need-blind admissions - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. Financial standing has no merit on admissions, and if you can get in, you get to attend regardless of the financial support you require.

Its a great system, but it unfortunately falls apart for the less-elite schools which don't have massive endowments to rely on.

University admissions are need-blind when you're playing at this level, and qualified students from families who can't afford it are given aid packages that make it free or nearly free.

Compared to many other institutions, Stanford does a good job of dealing with that issue. 85% of students receive some form of financial aid. There is no family financial burden for incomes $60k/year and lower.

Stanford is not a fantastic example. It is very rare that a Stanford degree or UCB degree doesn't pay off

Stanford also heavily reduces total cost of attendance for people that make middle class salaries.