I don't think it is right to think of this as a economic bubble. Degrees are not a straight investment. It differs from place to place, of course. But on the whole, demand isn't that related to real or assumed future income effects.
Even when it is, it is also related to prestige, ideas about what it's like to be a lawyer/engineer/doctor & other things.
It's not unreasonable that the price will outweigh benefits & that people will pay to be a lawyer.
>>from a career perspective (not a personal or educational one, mind you),
I don't think you can isolate those two in the long run.
But all that said, the education world can be turned on it's head. There are more ways to learn things now & there are potentially much, much cheaper ways to provide education. Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense.
I once worked out that for a year of full time study, I was only getting about 5-10 hours of dedicated lecturer/tutor time. That includes some classes with low enrolment & some with massive enrolment & doesn't include preparation or marking.
Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense.
I don't think that is very common: the vast majority of the funding for research comes from the government (e.g. NSF, DARPA, NIH), various non-profits, and corporate sponsorship.
A lot comes from these sources, but often a lot comes from fees. Also funding is not necessarily research grants. It also includes keeping the physical Universities & their bureaucracies going.
In any case, my point was that the fees charged by elite US schools are disproportionate to the cost of providing the education. Even the costs are probably disproportionate to the what costs would be if universities were competing on efficiency/price.
my advisor is charged a significant ~50% overhead on my stipend and a significant percentage overhead on all equipment (e.g. 100k laser systems). This is paid out of NSF grants and it is supposed to cover costs of building maintenance and utilities.
Again, I'm not saying that students are solely carrying the burden of research. There are multiple income sources. But many degree programs are run as revenue generating activities.
But there are a bunch of cross subsidies going on. International/Domestic, Across disciplines, undergraduate/postgraduate. Science students get 3X or more the hours, equipment & materials that sociology or accounting students get. An accounting course (8 courses = 1 year down here) might consist of 2X14 lectures (50-150 students per lecture), 1X12 tutorials(8-15 students) & whatever preparation time is paid (I imagine anywhere from .5 to 2.5 to the hour). Tutors are often only paid in the $20-$30 range. It would not be unusual to average a figure that works out at a small fraction of the cost (or potential cost) to deliver that education.
In general, that hints at a possibility of something flying under the current system & undermining it. All these money machines (eg prestigious MBA programs) could go outside the big institutions. You might say these programs are worthless without the prestige of the institution. Well that's another problem.
Even when it is, it is also related to prestige, ideas about what it's like to be a lawyer/engineer/doctor & other things. It's not unreasonable that the price will outweigh benefits & that people will pay to be a lawyer.
>>from a career perspective (not a personal or educational one, mind you),
I don't think you can isolate those two in the long run.
But all that said, the education world can be turned on it's head. There are more ways to learn things now & there are potentially much, much cheaper ways to provide education. Students subsidising research doesn't make much sense.
I once worked out that for a year of full time study, I was only getting about 5-10 hours of dedicated lecturer/tutor time. That includes some classes with low enrolment & some with massive enrolment & doesn't include preparation or marking.