> Increased competition for desirable placements is the classic limited supply high demand scenario.
I would suggest that if you believe the issue facing the US higher education system is a limited supply of places, you may not understand the US higher education system. In fact, if you look globally you'll find that the countries with low tuition are the ones who ruthlessly control the number of places.
In the US in particular you'll note that we went from around 45% of high school grads enrolling in college in 1970, to 70% enrolling in 2010, even as tuition climbed far faster than inflation. If 70% of all high school grads represents a "limited supply", what do you think the demand is?
(The number of places at elite schools is limited. It's actually not hard to explain why Harvard is expensive; the question is why everywhere else is too.)
> patronage
That was my point; I took skwosh to be arguing against a system where the wealthy purchased art/science/journalism for their own ends; my point is that this is the system we've always had: Private individuals (and latterly, corporations) being patrons of the arts, publishing newspapers, and funding scientific investigation. I believe skwosh was suggesting we move to a system where society as a whole should fund such things via taxation; I was pointing out that we've never had that.
You misunderstand the point about limited "places" (or at least the point I believe is intended).
For sake of argument, assume 90% of jobs out there are "bad jobs"--no prospect of real wage growth, declining stability, decreasing benefits--and the remaining 10% of jobs are "good jobs" (with some wage growth, stability, and benefits).
Assume also that it is widely believed that in general, to have a chance at landing a "good job" you need at least an undergraduate degree (necessary, not sufficient!).
In such a situation, will you not see everyone throw as many resources as they can into getting their kids a better chance of making it into one of those good jobs?
There's a lot you can quibble with but that's the "limited places" of significance, with demand for university education a byproduct of that more fundamental demand (for better positioning vis-a-vis the "good jobs").
This is thus more of a race to establish relative position vis-a-vis other entrants, so IMHO looking at tournament theory (etc.) is helpful for understanding the overall dynamics.
> In such a situation, will you not see everyone throw as many resources as they can into getting their kids a better chance of making it into one of those good jobs?
Absolutely, but the resources you can throw at it is strongly dependent on the availability of loans. Hence why we have $1.3 trillion in aggregate debt.
> Increased competition for desirable placements is the classic limited supply high demand scenario.
I would suggest that if you believe the issue facing the US higher education system is a limited supply of places, you may not understand the US higher education system. In fact, if you look globally you'll find that the countries with low tuition are the ones who ruthlessly control the number of places.
In the US in particular you'll note that we went from around 45% of high school grads enrolling in college in 1970, to 70% enrolling in 2010, even as tuition climbed far faster than inflation. If 70% of all high school grads represents a "limited supply", what do you think the demand is?
(The number of places at elite schools is limited. It's actually not hard to explain why Harvard is expensive; the question is why everywhere else is too.)
> patronage
That was my point; I took skwosh to be arguing against a system where the wealthy purchased art/science/journalism for their own ends; my point is that this is the system we've always had: Private individuals (and latterly, corporations) being patrons of the arts, publishing newspapers, and funding scientific investigation. I believe skwosh was suggesting we move to a system where society as a whole should fund such things via taxation; I was pointing out that we've never had that.