Loans that are guaranteed by the government, for all students, that can't be discharged by bankruptcy, is an idea clearly put together by lenders.
If we wanted government subsidies for private education, there are plenty of alternatives. Here's one: government guaranteed loans for all students; but repayment of those loans is capped as a percentage of the person's income, and interest rate is capped well beneath that. This would allow the government to subsidize students to go to college, while providing market pressure against universities raising their tuition yearly. It would also allow students who went to expensive institutions to pursue careers that aren't at the top of the financial spectrum, like, say, teaching.
This is the same probably I have with the affordable healthcare act: it started off about healthcare, but became about healthcare insurance.
(Preemptive Edit: I know they have free college in some European countries, but maybe they have the same problem.)
After a while we said "no, everybody should go to high school and learn civics and math even though they aren't necessary for most specific jobs". Before that, we had the poor starting manual labor or apprenticeships at 12, never learning anything beyond their specific skill, while actually becoming educated and a citizen was reserved only for the rich. We decided to make our workforce and citizenry more thoughtful and educated and improved society as a whole significantly.
It's time to do it again. Our world is much more complicated now, human knowledge has expanded vastly. College education is now the baseline for 'educated person' and that's okay. It's great, even. Thanks to free high school the poor can study math and history. If there were free college, the poor could study economics and philosophy and computer science too.
How many talented people do we lose by shunting the poor (who are, in capitalism, always the vast majority of the population) into non-education job training when they are young because they can't afford to learn about the world?
While the lack of student debt from studying so much sounds all nice, the reality is you get a bunch of 26-28 year olds graduating with Master's degrees and ZERO working experience, bar some internships which may or may not be useful.
There are two sub-problems here: "Free" education (not actually free when you see how much taxes are) allows Europeans to take their sweet time in graduating, so it's common for people to be done with their Bachelor's at 24 or 25, while their American counterparts graduate at 22/23 because of the (financial) pressure to finish on time. A combination of high taxes, encouragement from peers/uni to "study abroad" instead of work and from companies to keep their student status to stay interns, means there's also not much motivation to transition to full-time work.
Make no mistake about education quality here, it's not better than America, in fact it might be worse. The population here complains a lot on their local education quality (though you'll rarely ever hear it on the Internet - see last paragraph on why). A lot of memorization from books for things you'll rarely, if ever, use after graduating, lots of partying and bumming around. "Study abroad semester" is nothing more than a proxy term for "4 month vacation for sex, drinking, parties and roadtrips while the taxpayer takes care of the host country's evil out-of-state tuition (usually US, Canada or Australia)" - see for yourself with those "Erasmus" (exchange) students from Europe doing their exchange program in America.
There's a misconception commonly spread in Germany that staying as a student to work means you pay less taxes - kinda true, but technically it's because you get paid so little, you stay in the non-taxable <9000 EUR/year bracket - so you have people postponing graduation or enrolling in a new university without taking any courses after graduating to keep their student status.
Student/internship wage exploitation is turning into an epidemic because of the large student population that remain students for such a long time paired with legal loopholes that allow many companies to get away with hiring a bunch of cheap students instead of one full-time employee.
I've been living in Europe for a few years and they are not immune to the problems that Americans complain about. They do a good job complaining about America on the Internet while downplaying their own problems and spreading positive vibes (cough propaganda cough) on how Europe is superior/more human/ethical than America though.
Human beings are not studying machines.
Fail a course, and the response is not "re-booting, preparing trial N+1", the response is usually discouragement.
With free courses, good material, always on, and self selected motivated students - MOOCs were supposed to change the way we studied.
They had % completion rates in the single digits.
---
In every education system, there will be an issue.
The american system did very well - as long as there were jobs for high school students.
The fact is that most people are not cut out for college.
AS your (or any) society, starts forcing more and more people into higher education, because it becomes an unoffical pre-req for employment, you end up with many third order problems.
Firstly - testing.
In a class of 5 students, a teacher can test a students knowledge with detail.
With a class of 50 students, a teacher who has to grade submissions cannot afford the time to grade all of them.
This results in a drive for uniformity of answers - the removal of subjective answers from students, in favor of multiple choice.
The other way to enforce uniformity is to have a set of acceptable answers, so any deviation from it can just be identified and removed.
Since more students are now entering higher ed because its a pre-req for a job, they don't care about the subject. They care about the cert.
That means they will cheat, or memmorize the answers, and get on their merry way. Not everyone understand the humor in chemicals, or math. Nor do they care.
This is a process - and once started it grates at the old education system, till all of its higher purpose is eroded, and it streamlines itself to become a certification system. Buy your degree, or memmorize your way to do it.
This brings us to the next problem - not enough work even for degree holders.
The creation of more degree holders doesn't resolve the inherent jobs problem.
It just creates more supply, which drives certificate inflation, and wage stagnation.
Higher degrees are meant to indicate a level of mastery and capability on a topic. After a few cycles of degradataion, it just means that the end product is someone with the capability of passing an exam. Not necessarily that they can create new and novel works in their field.
And all the while, life goes on. These students are usually young human beings, who have varying levels of motivation, maturity and experience - they will go on holidays, take breaks, fail, succeed gloriously, do stupid things and so on.
TLDR: What you have described are epi-phenomena. The issue is jobs. The input cost of production from blue collar labor has been going down over years.
Unless there is meaningful work, for people who were never meant to be ... data scientists, or comp sci engineers - you will always have a problem.
But it's hard to see and justify the same need for typical white collar jobs where college is mostly a repetition of high school and employers train you/indoctrinate you with their koolaid anyway once you're done showing them you have a Bachelor's/Master's.
The same applies for comp sci/developers where a lot of the talented ones tend to enjoy writing code or playing around with tools like web APIs or their Android SDK way before they went to college anyway. It seems a lot of people who weren't passionate in the tech field before, but majored in the T part of STEM in college basically forced themselves into it for the money. They end up graduating with the same certificates anyway, but the forced-non-passionate ones use the cert only for getting their foot in the door while still lacking critical thinking and have little interest in improving/enhancing their skill set (See: majority of developers from India).
And don't even get me started on lower-tier majors like communications, history/librarian, arts, basic design, etc where little more than basic hands-on training would be adequate to get people on their feet to do their jobs, versus spending a ton of time and money on 4 to 8 years of 'higher education'
The fix for this can be realized with a tax that funds education; if you need someone with a bachelors, you pay X as a tax. If you need someone with a masters, you pay 2X. A PhD? 4X. If the position doesn't require a degree and you train them, you pay no tax (ie journeyman or apprenticeship).
Self-directed learning is great, but if you've ever been a teacher or a student in a genuinely difficult subject you know autodidactism is VERY limited and works for a tiny few on a tiny number of subjects. Autodidacts generally have an oversimplified understanding of a subject they think they know because they lack the social engagement in the topic and deep understanding that comes from engaging with true expertise. They think they know far more than they do, nearly every single time in my experience interacting with them. Which is not bad, as a teacher this is an excellent place to have your students start because you can quickly disabuse them of this notion and they become eager to learn more.
Even if one didn't require that many employers require exactly that from you in the form of a diploma or some other authority vouching for your claimed expertise and skills.
Corporate taxes basically don't exist in the US. Taxes on the wealthy barely exist compared to the most productive period in US history, when they were 94%. Your question reveals more about its asker than the subject. The whole point of having a country is so that the resources we generate together can be used to help the country, not so that a tiny wealthy oligarchy can siphon off all our resources and leave us to die, then when we ask to live, say "how will you pay for it?" [because I, after stealing your money, obviously won't give any of it back to you]
Nobody is going to say "sure the deficit is increasing even more, but at least the spending is consistently wasteful instead of only wasteful towards rich people".
The problem is the proliferation of degrees, and thinking that hasn't caught up with the new reality (e.g. "getting a degree is good" -> "getting the RIGHT degree is good").
Not sure it gets better in a global world, where the vast majority of high IQ people live outside the west, and intelligent jobs not based on local legislation (like lawyers) can move easily internationally.
Actually I don't know. If it is then that's certainly a good use of it and I agree that college is not an intrinsic good but ending poverty is. I suppose it's really a two-pronged problem. (1) We want to raise everybody up out of poverty. (2) We want people to be economically mobile, aka even in the case of UBI no-one wants to be a serf on the CEO's plot.
Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
"Now the problem poor people have is obvious: they don't have enough money. They can't afford food, housing, or medical care. The simple, obvious, efficient way for the government to help them is to give them money so they can buy these things. So that is not how the government does it."
This is basically the libertarian argument for a basic income: if we're going to have an expensive welfare state, it should be efficient and it should actually accomplish its stated goals.
poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
It's even more directly correlated with the level of money.
Depending on what you mean by this, it could be either a good idea or nothing would change. So can you clarify?
If you simply mean that the students would only have to pay back a portion of the loan, but the government would still have to fund the rest to the university, then nothing would change from how things work right now. The universities would keep raising the prices.
So let's say I took in $1000 before taxes this month. The highest my minimum monthly payment can be on my student loans (total) is $100.
That puts pressure back on the university to keep their tuition rates in line with what can actually be repaid, ie, the actual financial value of the degree itself.
Not saying this is the ideal solution, it just shows how much of a canard the parent poster's answer is. There are plenty of solutions to this issue, depending on what we want to do.
If private loan repayment rates were capped, then private institutions would have a very, very strong incentive not to loan student loan rates larger than a certain amount to students, depending on the major and university. Quite frankly, a student asking for 200k for an english degree at Drexel would be denied. Why? Because Drexel isn't known for its english program. Average salary of a Drexel graduating English major is, let's guestimate, 50k a year for the majority of their lifetime. At 50k a year, at a 10% rate, the bank isn't going to get its funds back for 40 years, before interest. If the average age of death/retirement in this country is in the early 70s, the student will literally die of old age or retire before finishing repaying the loan.
Now students will be unable to attend financial unviable options. The university will understand that if it raises its tuition beyond a certain level, it will be unable to support its english department, because no sane bank would back the loans required to graduate.
Again, the above is a very contrived example with BS numbers. And I'm not suggesting that the above is the way we would want to fix the issue. But it could work, and it certainly puts pressure on the universities.