<p>"Why does america praise getting a higher level of education;but turns it around and makes it very expensive?" </p>
<p>CTC, in regards to public higher education the situation of it becoming expensive (sometimes ruinously expensive) is a fairly recent phenomenon. Those who went to college in the late 60's and into the 70's and mid 80's were not subjected to these conditions to the extent of those who have attended college in the recent past or are doing so today. </p>
<p>Largely what occurred was a redirection of emphasis away from grants and lower cost public loans to what are essentially privatized corporate loans. (which often ironically are backed by public money under federal guarantees).</p>
<p>How this change was achieved was partially by disinformation, and partially by redirection of funds or cutting of what had been stable funding. The disinformation first came in the form of a artificial hue and cry regarding loan defaults. As a response congress gave almost draconian powers to the emerging privatized loan companies who soon used those same powers to enhance the costs of education loans. And that situation developed into an unholy situation of increased costs, and since the colleges had become reliant on this new source of funds most looked away from the attendant problems for students and their families. Many state Universities and colleges still do.
Currently its the elite privates who are actually promoting alternatives out of this circular cost trap. </p>
<p>The hapless irony is that despite some high profile stories of doctors and lawyers walking away from loans, the actual default rate on federal loans was nominal. (And much lower than the actual default rates extant and projected today). So essentially what occurred was a misleading propaganda campaign, using a conceptual equivalent to the old urban legend of the Cadillac driving welfare mom, to redirect a working system into one which made massive profits for corporate interests.</p>
<p>Attendant to these developments was a concerted campaign to reduce non loan aid, and reduce programs which supported higher education operating costs. The former was largely a federal problem, the latter largely a consequence of state misapplications. </p>
<p>And the whole mess also correlates to a basic shift of emphasis in the structure of the American economy, to obtain a concise understanding of how that came to be read Dr. Elizabeth Warren's essays on debt and the American middle class.</p>
<p>And unfortunately this overall shift in funding emphasis and the attendant social costs will eventually be ruinous to American Higher Education, especially the state schools. Many who graduated in the 70's and early 80's don't know how bad its become; because what served them as useful and balanced aid has become very, very different. And much of that perception does arise from fairly successful PR campaigns within the collegiate system and the new entities controlling the funding. Problem is all the hoopla about increased earnings for college graduates and 'lifelong learners' is not going to be perceived as credible if these trends continue. For example in conversations with students its very clear that they are aware of an cost to benefit imbalance and are very concerned. </p>
<p>However many within higher education, especially faculty are becoming very concerned. Simply because (in the context of state schools) the costs will eventually escalate to the level that the populations traditionally served by state schools will begin to opt out. And within the teaching contingent itself, many are quite aware of the cost problems as they struggle to pay for the lingering debts from their own education. To the extent that conversations about leaving the US and teaching elsewhere are actually quite common.</p>