I agree that non-dischargeable debt for education was a horrible change, given the predatory response of the colleges and collusion between the increasing power of the administrative class over the university and the capitalists providing debt funding.

However, removing that does not fix the underlying political goal of assuring access to higher education, which Johnson back in 1965 described as "no longer a luxury, but a necessity". https://archive.org/details/4730960.1965.001.umich.edu/page/...

US schools are increasingly extractive because if higher education is indeed necessary then it is economically beneficial for someone to go to college - so long as the result is more profitable than not going to college. If the college charges less than that (or rather, the college + debt industry), then they leave money on the table.

There is little interest in providing quality low-cost education because it is capital intensive, and capitalists want to maximize their profits. As the recent news about rent collusion shows, capital owners will collude to extract more profits.

> the pendulum swung too far

This has been a trope since the 1960s when the right started their culture war against college education as the post-GI bill era meant college was no longer a place primarily for the children of the privileged classes.

That is, be specific - when was the pendulum enough in the other direction that you wouldn't have complained thusly? It seems you like the 1960s, when the right complained about ivory tower academics filling student brains with anti-American nonsense.

> reductions in permanent salaried academic positions

We have that. These are called adjunct professors. "Editorial: U.S. colleges are overusing — and underpaying — adjunct professors" / "The American Assn. of University Professors reports that 70% of faculty are adjunct, most of them without benefits, job security or union representation; they teach more than half of all college courses in the U.S."

They are also poorly paid, exactly as you would expect from an extractive industry.

How low should it be? 20% 10%? But in the 1960s in the era you praise, those numbers were much higher, back when academic positions included significant administrative responsibilities.

If you really want to remove "administrative bloat", remove administrators.

> garnished wages from placed-into-their-trained field employees

Ahh, so you follow the meat widget model of college education. Got a degree in physics but decide to open a chocolate boutique? Sorry, you'll need to pay back your education first.

It costs a lot to go to med school, so those who go often end up in debt, which means they need to get jobs which pay enough to pay back that debt, which means they can't afford to provide medical care to poor communities.

It costs a lot to become a lawyer, which is one of the factors for public defenders are 1) needed, and 2) so overworked.

Besides, we've had similar policies for a long time. I had teachers back in the 1980s whose agreed to debt relief for their teacher education which contingent on being a teacher for enough years.

I've also heard stories about the consequent problems in such a bureaucratized system.

> see both European and US models collaborate harder on job and work placement as part of ensuring student success

There is no "European model". The UK has a very different system than Germany, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_education_system

In Germany: "After passing through any of the above schools, pupils can start a career with an apprenticeship in a Berufsschule ( vocational school). Berufsschule is normally attended twice a week during a two, three, or three-and-a-half-year apprenticeship; the other days are spent working at a company. This is intended to provide a knowledge of theory and practice. The company is obliged to accept the apprentice on its apprenticeship scheme." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

How is that not exactly what you are asking about?

> The common bailiwick that needs to die is that Europeans don’t pay for college

I'm really tired of people doing the "I'm so clever" comment that "you know that 'free health care' isn't free, right"? That extends to people pointing out that "free college education", and "free K-12 education" and "free school lunches" and "free tampons" and "free condoms" aren't actually free.

Like, duh. It's just name-calling implying I'm ignorant, and therefore you don't need to take me seriously.

Did you know that freeways aren't actually free, but depend on tax funding?