I think they are correct.
Reforming higher education means cutting spending first and foremost.
Shut down half the universities, lay off 1/3 of the staff in the rest, seize the endowments, close all the sports stadiums, fire most of the admins, force students to finish in 3 years, and then take the pile of money we are already spending on education and make that be the full tuition.
Voters concerned about high taxes would benefit from this, as would the top 50% of students. The bottom 50% of University students should be diverted to 2 year long trade schools, which can be built on the ruins of the shutdown universities, but staffed with craftsmen rather than professors. Industry can pay for 1/3 of it, students can pay for 1/3, and taxpayers can pay for the other third of the trade schools.
The tone is draconian because you have a whole class of people ripping students off, ripping taxpayers off, providing very little value, and yet being extremely sanctimonious about why more spending is needed. The hypocrisy and amorality of the higher education industry in the US is stunning, so a draconian approach is called for.
Any limit to university education in the US butts up with class (read: race) and inequality issues. I would love to close all of the over-priced and educationally dubious for-profit institutions. But any semblance that we are limiting educational attainment to the educational-haves is unacceptable.
The market for what HNers regard as an education (4-year degrees from established public or private universities) is really only like half of the post-secondary education market.
If you offer Johnny $20,000 to attend Purdue, you have to give everyone $20,000, regardless of their school-choice, aptitude, likelihood to graduate, or future income projections. To do so otherwise puts society in the unfortunate position of deciding who gets to pursue the American Dream.
This has already occurred and continues to be cut further. What also happened however, is the legislature promised lenders that taxpayers would pay for all student loans. Of course this doesn’t get accounted in cash flow, because you can just assume more people will pay back their loans than actually will.
So now you have a situation where a lender can make a loan of unlimited amount of money with no risk to the lender, a borrower who knows nothing about money but has infinite ability to borrow, and a seller (schools) that get less money from taxpayers, but now can fight for the gobs of money that the students (who know nothing) have control of spending.
Hence unnecessary stadiums, recreational centers, buildings, admin, etc.
A student who is unable to repay their private loans before death leaves the lender without the money I think.
This may have changed in the past few years.
US voters aren’t comparing taxes with Japan and Germany. They’re voting between politician A who says they will lower taxes, and does it by removing funding for higher education or politician B, who does provide higher education and hence has to collect higher taxes and politician A. Politician A can get away with this by claiming they still support students by providing government loans or government guaranteed private loans or whatever, but they don’t have to account for it in the same way politician B does.
I agree with all of your points, and I far prefer the German model too. But American voters seem to love debt, and low taxes, and rarely is a thought given to the future.