A simple and cheap part of the solution would be providing labour market reports free to students and having guidance counselors actually speak meaningfully to students about the probability of success, economic outcomes, and quality of life expected in different professions.

Many friends from my undergraduate years didn't realize they were entering professions with terrible employment prospects. Had they known, maybe they would have chosen to double major to buffer themselves while still studying what they loved. I see fine arts majors studying business as a beautiful example of idealism and pragmatism marrying.

Also, on a more general note, we think of education completely the wrong way, with payment occurring on a front-end basis. There needs to be a tighter link made for jobs outcomes in the financing equation. I predict we'll see student debt securitized by major and class, with differential rates of return by area of study, region. We may even see tuition linked to post-baccalaureate income.

Ultimately, there needs to be a balance between driving market needs and respecting the legacy and integrity of scholarship. Market-based pricing would better align students to current labour market needs, and merit scholarships enable the best students the luxury to pursue a less lucrative field at little cost. A blend of the two is needed. As to whether the blended rates should be paid out of the public purse or out of pocket is a matter of ideological preference-- economic theory could have it go either way.


What is to give light must endure burning.