I disagree with a lot of your facts. Citation needed on a lot of those. Specifically:

1) I'm from an era where it wasn't possible to build up this huge debt that students have. So I have seen step 2. It wasn't a perfect life in Step 3, but it certainly didn't have students collecting in the streets, in protest of their unmanageable student debt (which we have now!!). Was it better then, than now? Well, that's certainly up to debate, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think there's a previous model to look at and learn from.

During the Clinton administration's "make college more affordable" effort, I wrote a post that actually predicted that college costs would escalate to an unmanageable level and that there would be student riots over their unmanageable debt. I also purchased a college savings plan for my own children that was "inflation protected" , which ended up being a brilliant move. I paid mid 90's prices for my kids' education, and I'm done. So I was wrong about student riots (so far, although Occupy X is getting close), but I was financially correct, which is what really matters to my family.

2) I visited a lot of colleges in the past 4 years with my kids. And EVERY college, without exception, had at least one multi-million dollar project underway. Now, this was a self-selected sample, but I'd say 16 out of 16 were that way. The projects were for academic buildings, student centers, student rec centers, and athletic facilities. EVERY single one. So if you have facts to support that delaying such projects are necessary spending, I'd like to see them. I would contend that all 16 schools' projects were excessive projects, in the sense that they were not "necessary", that the school was getting by just fine with the current student center (for example), and that, for the most part, they were to "make the school more attractive and competitive". And they ARE required for competitive purposes if everybody's doing it. But they are absolutely not required if no one is doing it. And they certainly are not required in tough times. Delay it a year or two. Geeez.

Businesses everywhere have to do more with less now. Get with the program, schools!

3) I agree that copyrights are expensive. I disagree that online doesn't save money vs. print. Simply look at the prices of online vs. print in Amazon. Quick semi-random check of Amazon showed 19 out of 20 books cheaper on Kindle (when available), with savings ranging from 6% to 60%.

In addition, there are a number of innovations in education, which include FREE online resources. Wikibooks, Project Gutenberg, Free Tech Books,
Open Book Project, Textbook\Media, Textbook Revolt, and Textbook Revolution are ALL fighting the high price of text books. If your choice as a university is to go out of business or encourage your teachers to use and contribute to free textbooks, you bet colleges and universities will start using and contributing to these resources. Force the choice!

And certain major universities are putting all their lectures on line. Why not? And why not use these to fight the high cost? You'd think that Universities would be LEADING the effort to going online, but they are dragging their feet trying to hold onto an obsolete model! I wish Amazon University or Google University would open, and force their hands! It's time for a shake-up, because this ridiculous pricing model for higher education is not sustainable!

4) I didn't say "push your employees harder" by asking them to teach an extra course. Those were your words. As shown above (with online resources), and as shown in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY, people have to do more with less, and technology can help solve that problem. People need to think out of the box.

5) I would like to see your evidence that "Most non-ivy league schools don't have endowment funds". Quick check of some of the universities that we visited: Ohio State has more than 4000 endowment funds. University of Cincinnati has a $1.004 Billion endowment fund. BILLION! See also this article.

I'll concede that my statement of "ever-increasing endowments" was an exaggeration. They have bad days and bad years. But there is a bundle of money that is not benefiting students that is just sitting out there.

6) The Pell Grant mills are making a lot of money simply by filling their student body with homeless and indigent students who have little or no chance of graduating into a higher life for themselves. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money.

7) The comment below has little basis in fact, and a lot of contradicting evidence:

Simply look at any other industry were there was a major cost shake-up. Take the book industry. Amazon came along and changed a lot. Look at how Walmart shakes up the retail landscape. Look at how Apple shook up the phone industry. In EVERY one of those cases, which were EXTREME examples of industry shake-ups, I contend that your statement that "virtually every other" competitor didn't "go bankrupt in a few months". That's simply nonsense-speak. You are flat out wrong on that point.

If education took a look at other markets and other businesses, and even education in the past (like 70's or 80's), they'd learn a ton, and they could adapt. This isn't rocket science, and even if it were, who better to adapt than the rocket science teachers? Unfortunately, much of academia has been in a bubble, insulated from real world conditions, and free government money simply exacerbates the problem.

Sorry for turning your arguments into Swiss cheese! :)

If you are really trying to apply economics to this, I believe this would be a SHIFT in the supply/demand curve, not just movement along the same supply/demand curve. Net result would be lower prices.

Each university has fixed costs and variable costs. If enrollment is down, each student's payment would have to cover more of the fixed costs, unless fixed costs are reduced. If fixed costs weren't reduced, then tuition would go up, causing less students to be able to afford that university.

There will be universities that can quickly adjust their fixed costs downward, and those that can't. Those that can't will go out of business, because they'd have to raise fees, causing a death spiral (less students able to afford it, so higher fees required, and so on). The closing of those universities will cause an increase in enrollment in those schools that were able to adjust their fixed costs downward, so they reach equilibrium. Equilibrium would therefore (likely) be reached at a lower cost, and so the cost of education would go down. And that's the goal.

So play the scenario out. Say Federal subsidized loans are eliminated. What would happen?

Sounds like you are contending that college enrollment would plummet because only the rich can go. So play it out a little further. Say you are the President of some university, and you see forecasts that indicate that enrollment will plummet. What would you do?

Some creative universities will make education more affordable. How? Maybe by delaying that multi-million dollar building project. Maybe by requiring teachers to use online books only, not paper books. Maybe by squeezing a little more out of the budget. Maybe by asking the professors to each teach one more class. Maybe by granting more scholarships. Maybe by tapping the ever-increasing endowment funds. Maybe by attracting local students who can live at home (our local university requires freshman and sophomores to live on campus, even if their home is 7 miles away! That's insane!)

Some other universities (Pell grant mills) will simply go out of business. Instead of recruiting the homeless to sign up for classes that they never attend, and collecting federal money for that "service", they will simply end their crooked practices.

Still others who fail to adapt will feel it on their bottom line. They may go out of business. At the very least, they will learn very quickly that they need to adapt. Happens all the time in the real world. They will be forced to create affordable education for students. Period.

This isn't a hard concept, and it happens annually in the real world. Companies need to re-evaluate the business that they are in. Are they in the "Education at any cost" business? Or are they in the "Affordable Education" business. Frankly, you'd think that any business school could help its administration adapt, as this is commonly taught in entry level business courses.

When I was much younger, I underwent extensive training in destroying falling near-earth objects. I would love to use that training to secure a high paying job protecting our civilian and military population.

The training that I received is discussed here, with screen shots.

Yeah, you're right. Google has no money, and could never sponsor this without government funding.

You don't make a convincing argument.

So you wouldn't have gone to school if you couldn't borrow money? Even your out-of-pocket costs were identical? Wow.

No, right now, universities are charging high prices because they can. It's called a government subsidy, and it's a well-known side-effect of government subsidies. If the government didn't subsidize it, then Universities would find creative ways to decrease the cost or increase the value.

You're right. There's nothing magical about it. The price would drop instantly, but not magically. A few universities would lead the pack (just as happens in the business world). The leaders would continue making a healthy profit, while the laggards who do not lower their price would go out of business. Plain and simple. And they would find creative ways to lower their price. Is that even possible?

Wow, you found a key to the lowering of price! So, if books were not required, and educational materials were online instead, the price of higher education would be cheaper? And if more universities allowed local people to stay home instead of living on campus, it would be cheaper? Congratulations for destroying your own argument!

I think you are missing a major point.
If you "include University level education for free", you are essentially passing those costs on to someone. Who? The taxpayer, of course.

Student Loans (which require repayment) are essentially a tax on college students (the exact person receiving the benefit). The government subsidizes (and/or guarantees) the loan. The student agrees to be "taxed" until it gets paid off. Your idea suggests that the costs get paid by someone - the taxpayer. And guess who that is... it's the student once they are working. Not much of a difference!

The best way to keep costs education costs down is to get rid of the middle man (the government). If you, the citizen, need to make a decision as to whether you can afford Ivy League vs. Out of State vs Private vs. In State but away from home vs. at home, and you have no middle man, I guarantee the prices for college would get competitive in a hurry. You won't pay extra for the Out of State or Private school if you can't afford it, and/or if the proven results don't justify the price.

Colleges would finally get competitive, having to prove that their value is worth the cost. They'd increase their value, or they'd decrease their cost. Period.

Right now, it's a free-for-all, with Universities all sucking off the government teat. Ron Paul is dead-on correct, on this issue.

As with any major shift in public policy, there would be a pain period for some people, and there would be a shake out (potentially causing some universities to go out of business, which would be a GOOD thing). Frankly I am sick of the local community colleges who bring people in off the street (literally the homeless), knowing that the college can get FREE government money by "educating" the homeless person, who ultimately is just a name on their role call. Many never attend a single class. Still others don't complete the courses, or they fail. But the school still gets their cash from the federal government! Great! If these schools were truly educating the homeless, that would be wonderful. But they aren't rewarded for educating the homeless. They are rewarded for getting a name onto the college application and booking them into classes.

Turn on daytime television any day of the week (like Maury), and watch commercial after commercial for these schools. As my son says "I don't think you want to go to any college that has a jingle".

Wow, you nailed it.

For all you tech guys building products that you want to take to market, this is exactly the right strategy as a start-up. Build your product to fill the gaps left by the competition. Don't try to go head to head with a market incumbent - that's suicide!

Another strategy is the Microsoft "Embrace -> Extend -> Eliminate" style. You have to embrace today's paradigm. In the Google+ case, they could have embraced Facebook, but given people a slight advantage by using Google+. And then an advantage by using ONLY Google+.

Sorry to hear about your tough situation.

I really think that the programs to make loans easier have permitted colleges to raise their tuition rates without concern. Honestly, I think that much of the OWA outrage should be aimed at the well-intended federal programs that allowed government-backed student loans.

But one thing that really confuses me was "an utter lack of money management skills". I have MENSA-type family members with this disability, and I just don't get it. The "equation" is something that a 4th grader should be able to grasp: "Spend less than you make".

You're probably the wrong person to ask, but why can't smart people grasp that?

I contend that tuition increases are precisely because of government attempts to "make college more affordable to the masses" through student loan programs.

I guarantee if everyone had to pay cash for education, and didn't have easy access to loans, demand at the 100K price would plummet, and *somehow* the institutions would figure out ways to provide cost-effective education (or go out of business). Maybe there would be a few less brand new buildings on campus. Maybe the endowment funds would stop growing and growing. Maybe there would be less waste on campus.

So regional floods are about the equivalent of 150 buckets of water?

And that's not to mention the literally thousands of jobs he would be cutting to serve his agenda.

I'm surprised you don't see the issue in this statement.

Generally, tax funded jobs are not jobs that you should want to preserve. If tax funded jobs are such a good idea, why not have full employment now, having the federal government hire all of the unemployed? Simply raise the tax rate to cover it.

See the issue there?

Tax-funded jobs should be the rare exception, where private industry is less efficient or unmotivated to serve the same function. If we cut the federal labor force dramatically, and cut the federal tax rate, there would be plenty of demand and cash to support these people in "real" jobs.

Watch out for hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis.

(Please read this daily. Thank you.)

WARNING TO MOTORISTS: Do not listen to AC/DC while driving, or you might nod off!

OK, now we can make a similar claim about AC/DC music as this one:
"The eight-minute track is so effective at inducing sleep, motorists have now been warned they should not listen to it while driving."

But doesn't the term "Comic Sans" roughly mean "Without Humor" or "Not Funny" ?

Sounds perfect for a technical paper.