One idea that intrigues me is to simply abolish all tax, spending, and loan subsidies to higher ed and provide each citizen an $80,000 'stake' when they reach the age of 21 (to be provided in $20K increments if they go to college). This is elaborated in a new book I like called "The Stakeholder Society" by Bruce Ackerman & Anne Alstott. The propose to finance this with a two percent tax on wealth, which they estimate would raise $270 billion annually.
One virtue of this is that it does not discriminate against people who are not interested in higher ed.
mbs
Brad De Long said the other day:
>a serious (OK, semi-serious) push to increase educational
>attainment
As far as the U.S. government contribution, it's largely rhetorical. Here's federal spending on the budget category called "Education, training, employment, and social services" as a percent of GDP:
1962 0.219% 1970 0.856% 1980 1.171% 1990 0.682% 1993 0.772% 1998 0.653% 2004 (proj) 0.647%
So, spending rose a bit during the Bush years and has fallen in the Clinton years - and Clinton's own budget projects a further decline over the next 5 years even before the cretins in Congress get a hold of it.
Yes, education is mostly a state and local responsibility, but for all the blather Clinton & Co. have uttered over the last 6 years, there ain't no money where their very active mouths are.
Doug