> the trillion dollars of student debt that can't be paid off because many degrees don't produce real economic value to justify the cost of education.
Less than 10% of student loan debt is in default, and the total debt is less than 2 trillion, so I don’t believe it’s accurate to say “trillions” can’t be paid off. Also according to the US Fed, degree holders earn on average 2x more than non degree holders. (Think about the increase in tax base as a result).
Student loan debt isn’t necessarily any indicator of failure. Debt is (perhaps) a natural part of the economy. There might be reasons that we should fund education and not ask students to borrow. But the borrowing by itself is not proof that anything is wasted or wrong.
> it’s barely changed in centuries.
What are you referring to? The fields of Bioengineering and Computer Science didn’t exist centuries ago. Physics and Chemistry have changed completely. Almost nothing in the modern soft sciences did either. Modern research funding is nothing like it was centuries ago, or even 50 years ago. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
> because the government subsidizes it so there is no incentive to change
Then it means people pay less than they would otherwise? That further begs the question of what kind of efficiency you want. What should a college education cost, and who should pay for it? How much should professors get paid, and who should pay them, where should the money come from?
You complained both about govt subsidizing and debt. So how do you envision this getting cheaper? I’m in favor of govt funding education, but that’s a bigger subsidy than today. I think the govt can already afford it (since degree holders earn 2x more than non degree holders) but that doesn’t change the efficiency of the system.
