But it still finances higher education. As I said, each student is financed in New York State with a $15,000 subsidy, and the poor and middle class students receive an additional $5,500 in Pell Grant, subsidized student loan at low rates (between 2 and 3%), a loan that is forgiven after 10 years if you work in low paying jobs, and it's a loan with reduced payouts based on your income. Not to mention the grants-in-aid and scholarships for the best students.

As part of the system, I'm a big booster. Obviously.

I wouldn't really want it to be lower.

For a variety of reasons.

But as I said, I accounted for Pell grants from the federal gov't and a variety of subsidies and scholarships.

Let me put it this way. The amount of subsidy for public higher education in many US states far far exceeds anything elsehwere in the world. Asking students to take on 1/4 of the cost of their education (when that quarter itself is totally met by Pell grants and grants-in-aid for a big percentage of students) is not asking too much. Many of my students work 15 hours a week at part-time jobs. The alternative to this tuition structure is to dismantle the current system of higher education because we can't ask taxpayers to do more than fund $15,000 per student in a state like New York. The teacher to student ratio at my school, and the level of support, is 3x better than it is one hour away at a marvelous school like the U. of Toronto in Canada. The tax rate in New York is 7% of income, 9% sales tax, and $9,500 a year property tax on a $250,000 house (if you can find one that cheap). These are state and local taxes, not federal. The alternative to $5-7,000 in tuition is a dismantling of the higher education system.

The problem is, if students do not want to pay $5-7k for research universities, they have the option of attending satellite universities and community colleges at less than half the cost. But I don't want all schools to be turned into that.

In other words, that's no UCLA that is charging the amount beyond University fees. That is simply a notice of what they imagine will be required to feed and clothe a student living with parents. The parents nor the child pay that money to UCLA for the privilege of living and eating at home.

As for work, I don't think 15 hours of work outside university is unreasonable. I did it. And in the summers, I earned up to $5,000.

We are in partial agreement. I do agree that one might take on onerous debt and really put their future in hock, as is evident in Jeffersonian's post. I myself am in hock, but that was because I could not abide by the $12,000 salary I was asked to live on as a grad student (I could have lived on it, but I chose not to). My undergrad was paid for by the redistribution of funds from the rich to myself (i.e. I received grants in aid 90% from my university and the rest was work-study--I even pocketed my summer employment).

I still think $15-20k is not too much debt, and that in my experience, students who pay seem to appreciate their education more. With Pell Grants and Work Study, a student from the lower middle class starts off the year with $12,000. Tuition is $5,000 to $7,000. Summer work could bring in $4,000. A student loan brings in another $5,000. That means a student has resources of $21,000 a year without tapping into their parents at all. That money minus tuition must meet their housing, food and book needs.

I'm actually much more concerned with the massive recent cuts in higher education. I think now is the time when the system might be dismantled.

I guess I'm simply referring to state education for state residents.

Together with my wife we too have burdensome loans, but that's what 17 years of post-undergraduate education will do to you. And we knew what we were doing all along. We just didn't want to live on the meager graduate assistant income, at the time. I don't really blame our former selves, even now. Living on $12k a year sucks especially when you're young. I don't regret it.