Well, it might cost $34 billion in tuition and such. A local community college here charges about $180/credit hour. Assume a 12-16 credit load so 14 on average would be @2520 per semester for tuition. The average annual price for a "good" university depends on whether its public or private. Public Universities typically are subsidized more by the State, but that is being trimmed back during this recession. For example, the U of M, here in Minnesota charges a flat rate $6,030.00 for residents per semester for 13 or more credits. Private colleges are typically around $20,000 per semester (but, have more discounting for exceptional students).
But, good point about delaying them from getting into the work world. I view it as sort of a wash really economically. The direct cost is borne by the student who is not in a vocation. This creates more demand for this level of lower skilled labor, increasing slightly the indirect price of labor. But, it also creates more demand for employment and salaries in the educational fields. If the price of the two years of 'not working' is borne by the government, then yes, tax payers will pay more taxes. If it is borne by loans taken out by students (or their parents), then the risk is all from the consumer who would also expect to get higher salaries due to their improved vocational value (getting a professionally oriented degree).
The nebulous part for me are those student who pursue "higher learning" which is not vocationally oriented. That is, which on does not directly yield an economic ROI. I guess one example might be History, or Philosophy. I'd like to say here that I'm a huge proponent of the classical liberal education for its own sake, in promoting civilization, and an educated populace. The question I see our government is asking typically is; "Should the government fund education that does not return the productivity later, as expressed by wages?"
But, good point about delaying them from getting into the work world. I view it as sort of a wash really economically. The direct cost is borne by the student who is not in a vocation. This creates more demand for this level of lower skilled labor, increasing slightly the indirect price of labor. But, it also creates more demand for employment and salaries in the educational fields. If the price of the two years of 'not working' is borne by the government, then yes, tax payers will pay more taxes. If it is borne by loans taken out by students (or their parents), then the risk is all from the consumer who would also expect to get higher salaries due to their improved vocational value (getting a professionally oriented degree).
The nebulous part for me are those student who pursue "higher learning" which is not vocationally oriented. That is, which on does not directly yield an economic ROI. I guess one example might be History, or Philosophy. I'd like to say here that I'm a huge proponent of the classical liberal education for its own sake, in promoting civilization, and an educated populace. The question I see our government is asking typically is; "Should the government fund education that does not return the productivity later, as expressed by wages?"
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)