The people who make a living as a name artist with "important" gallery exposure probably number a few hundred in the West.
There are more in China and Russia, both of which have big art scenes, and plenty of very rich people willing to splash the cash on prestige canvases.
The number of people making a living as visual artists is somewhere between a hundred and a thousand times that. There are a lot of people selling decorative, mass-appeal art, with varying levels of skill, but no serious pretensions to cultural significance.
Earnings follow the usual power law. Most get by, some are more comfortable, a handful do very well indeed.
I don't think any of them would seriously consider taking on $400k of debt.
I think we're getting to the point where universities are basically just running scams in these creative areas.
You'll get some value from a degree program, especially on the networking side. But - as OP says - it's just not worth saddling yourself with a lifetime of debt to pay for that access.
This kind of education used to be free/cheap, and that worked better for everyone - except the loan sharks.
My wife went back to complete a graphic design degree as a career change / work break. The opportunity cost of 4 years of not working is obviously huge, but the absolute cost was about 10k euro in Ireland, and that is on the high side for Europe as a whole I think.
Sure, but if you're interested in JUST painting, your professors would be well advised to give you the above advice. You don't learn to paint to feed yourself.
There are tens of thousands of musicians, photographers, actors, singers, and dancers that live off of their art.