Should taxpayers fund any and every choice in school and/or major?

[sanantone]

Unlike Hillsdale, Grove City College accepts state grants and even tells students to fill out the FAFSA if they want a state grant. They offer loans through PNC Bank, and the cap is $58,000. On average, Grove City College students have $40,600 in private loan debt upon graduation. That's more than the national average for all student loan debt. Over half of their students take out private loans. After the average amount of non-loan aid is applied, students have to pay around $17,740 per year for tuition and room and board. 

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/gro...269/paying
https://www.gcc.edu/Home/Admissions-Fina...Attendance

The colleges I've seen make the no debt thing work, such as Berea College, accept federal grants.

Then I guess it's a good thing that I didn't say, "Every institution should be like Grove City College."

My point was that the artificial ocean of money from Title IV leads to higher tuition rates, which at $2 trillion and counting is clearly not good for students, and that without it institutions will have to innovate to keep finances manageable for students.

The examples I gave were not meant to be the only ways that could ever happen, but simply to show that innovation in this area is possible.

Is that really so controversial?

I'm just a realist, so I look at practicality. Individual schools have been free to experiment with certain aid structures, and some structures are mostly failures that have worse outcomes than what we have at most schools. Therefore, those examples cannot be used for what is possible. If those methods failed at a small scale, they shouldn't be implemented at more schools. There's been innovation at colleges that participate in Title IV and those that don't. What ultimately matters is what works and what doesn't. Clearly, what Grove City College does works fine for the college but not for the students.