The costs for attending college are increasing. According to the Washington Post, "tuitions and fees for four-year public colleges grew by 72 percent above inflation over the past decade, averaging $8,244 last year, according to the College Board, which represents more than 6,000 schools. Student loan debt in the U.S. has hit $914 billion; the average borrower owes more than $24,000, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York says."
Not surprisingly, this topic is an issue in this year's presidential race. Both Romney and Obama are trying to court young voters with their policy positions on curbing college costs. There is no doubt that Obama has an advantage over Romney with young voters: "In 2008, voters age 18 to 24 sided with Obama over GOP candidate John
McCain by a 66-32 margin. A Gallup poll taken in July and August found
that same age group preferring Obama over Romney by 56 percent to 36
percent, an edge that Republicans would love to erode further."
Here is a site that compares the candidate's position on education.
With that said, what role should the government play in regulating escalating education costs? (Think of chapter two and the concepts of tradition, command, and market economic systems.) Would costs be reduced if all government subsidies were removed and a more "free market" approach were instituted? Or should Pell Grants be extended as proposed by President Obama? Since "private" colleges like Carrington College and Heald are very expensive, would turning colleges into a more free market system increase costs more or would competition bring the costs down? Privatizing colleges would reduce costs for the taxpayer since colelges would not get public dollars anymore.
What is your solution for the increasing college costs?