Student costs are similar in France and Germany, if not a lot lower.
It's simply a question of the US government spending money on things other than educating its citizens.
It's not that the government spends too LITTLE money - it's because it spends too MUCH without any in the form of cheap student loans with no risk based pricing.
Any 18 year old with no credit history can go and and take out over a $200k of student loans ($57,500 / year) from the government, without any regards to school or risk.
Barely graduated high school and majoring in underwater basketweaving at BoneHead U? As long as it's an "accredited school" (a sham process in and of itself), here's your money - at 3.5% interest! Nothing secured against the loan, no evaluation of your ability to repay, nothing - just free money with the not-so-insignificant fact that these loans are mostly non-dischargeable in bankruptcy or in some cases even death[1]
Majoring in computer science at Stanford? Here's the same loan at the same terms!
Now tell me which student is more likely to default and which is the better risk?
It's ABSOLUTELY because loans are underwritten by the US government willy-nilly in the name of "education for all" that we're in this mess, with universities building movie theaters and lazy rivers[2] at taxpayer expense.
It's a trillion dollar bubble waiting to pop.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_Sta...
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/fashion/college-recreation...
Why loan money tot he student to pay it to the university?
Why not just pay it directly to the school and charge the student some nominal amount? There's academic entrance requirements either way.
For less than 3% of their endowment, they could give 'free education'. Obviously the whole picture is a little more complex, but it does add some context around funding.
People do not tend to graduate MIT in deep debt and without job prospects.
If we made it so college debt was like normal debt, meaning it could be discharged in bankruptcy, the cost of a higher education would likely plummet, and come back down into the affordable range again.
Plenty of people come up with most or all of that as working students. And one of my roommates came from Europe because it was cheaper than any school in his country though this was a while ago.
My little sister got into a school that charges (ED: 43.2k tuition/year 2015-2016) which she wanted to go to. But, decided to go somewhere else for obvious reason. Some collages in the US charge a lot because they can find students willing to pay that much money, but there plenty of reasonable options.
The strange consequence of this is that it is almost better (from a selfish viewpoint), if you are not rich, to not have money saved for college if you send your kid to Harvard, because they'll take any money you do have.
The room and board cost is mostly based on cost of living (Boston and the Bay area are more expensive than Madison, Wisconsin), but financial aid will often cover that too.
The sticker price is misleading though. There are scholarships for merit and grants for need. Work study (often in makework jobs with ample downtime for studying) for almost anyone who seeks them out.
Even after that, employers in competitive fields offer loan repayment as a starting bonus, or doled out over time for retention. Work in public service makes some eligible for loan forgiveness.
Even without that, the loan companies have provisions for indefinite deferment during unemployment and automatic forbearance during enrollment in any other academic program. Income based repayment is a standard option. Essentially, if you wanted to break the system, you could pay full price for a ridiculously priced private school degree then probably go work at starbucks and send them $20 a month for a while, then go take four years off to study pottery at a community college to pay $0 a month while the fed pays all your interest.
Oh, then even after that, even if you are actually personally paying interest on a loan, historically the rates have been competitive (though that flipped a few years back), and there are tax credits for education spending, and deductions that kick in even when you're just repaying school loans.
The most surprising feature of the American system to me is not the price, but how hard it works to camouflage all its progressive and meritocratic features.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/college-is-chea...
Most of these (scholarships, work study) are available in other countries without the sticker price in the USA. Employers don't need to offer loan repayment as a starting bonus in other countries because the sticker price isn't so ridiculous.
It worries me how you rationalize this away - what happens if you don't get a scholarship or that loan repayment as a starting bonus and don't want to work for the government? If you just want to work for a mid-tier accounting firm then your education could be costing you an astronomical portion of your paycheck.
Back in 2011, I got into a few prestigious schools (CMU, U Chicago) that talked a big game about need-based aid. They trimmed a good bit off the sticker price for me, but it was still more than I could afford without getting into more debt than I was comfortable with. I'm graduating next month from the University of Pittsburgh where I pay no tuition because I grew up nearby and my high school performance was up to par. So my friends who do pay tuition are subsidizing my degree.
That's a distinction without a difference if almost no one is paying the sticker price except for the trust fund kid without any ability or willingness to work.
> It worries me how you rationalize this away
I disagree with you because the alternative model, "free or cheap for all," ends up subsidizing that trust fund kid who has no ability or desire to work. If you're subsidizing the rich, it's ultimately at the expense of the poor. It's a regressive system dressed up as progressive, it's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Characterizing our disagreement as "me rationalizing something away" though is undeservedly patronizing. If I responded in kind the discussion would quickly devolve into name calling.
We have a good faith disagreement. We can treat it that way or just not bother discussing it.
As ever, every example has a counter-example. I don't know which approach is right, but crazy grateful I didn't go through the American system. The cost strikes me as crippling.