Makes it a really specious argument in the previous context, then. The percentage goes down as the ratio of state-subsidized/private-subsidized becomes lower.
If the absolute number of state subsidization hasn't changed considerably--ignoring inflation--then the ratio changed because the private-subsidized number became higher.
If that outpaced inflation, then the real problem sounds a lot like people started throwing federal loan money at it so states didn't bother to increase their portion, so more federal loan money was needed, and repeat.
Maybe states haven't kept up with inflation so their contribution would technically be a decrease, but that's how numbers on paper work when they aren't updated due to lack of interest. The major ratio factor was all increases on the other side, some of which was buying power availability to the applicants--i.e. generally available private student loans rather than needs- or merit-based subsidy that has intrinsic boundaries.
Add in the whole "must go to a university or die poor" push of the anti-blue-collar 80s (not a thing previously) in the US that created a Cabbage Patch Kid rush for admissions slots and you're here. Significantly-increased buying power + spiking demand === runaway prices.
...or maybe not. But the percentage argument up at top of this comment thread doesn't prove that one way or the other without a lot more nuance.
If the absolute number of state subsidization hasn't changed considerably--ignoring inflation--then the ratio changed because the private-subsidized number became higher.
If that outpaced inflation, then the real problem sounds a lot like people started throwing federal loan money at it so states didn't bother to increase their portion, so more federal loan money was needed, and repeat.
Maybe states haven't kept up with inflation so their contribution would technically be a decrease, but that's how numbers on paper work when they aren't updated due to lack of interest. The major ratio factor was all increases on the other side, some of which was buying power availability to the applicants--i.e. generally available private student loans rather than needs- or merit-based subsidy that has intrinsic boundaries.
Add in the whole "must go to a university or die poor" push of the anti-blue-collar 80s (not a thing previously) in the US that created a Cabbage Patch Kid rush for admissions slots and you're here. Significantly-increased buying power + spiking demand === runaway prices.
...or maybe not. But the percentage argument up at top of this comment thread doesn't prove that one way or the other without a lot more nuance.