Arguing about college affordability is oxymoronic and paradoxical. The motivations of an educated society should be altruistic. Education in the specter of commerce creates a cast society that was all but abolished with the Magna Carta. In order to pull America out of its greed-induced coma (thus awakening to the new world's knowledge economy), commerce needs to be extracted from all super-structure institutions, education being one of them.
How is America to compete with the world on equal footing when a large majority of the education (and Health-Care) systems of competing nations are funded by respective Govt.'s. American High School students are competing with Baccalaureates and our Baccalaureates are competing with Master degree holders, and so on. Not to mention the post-graduate debt that casts entry-level work force into instant and lasting poverty. The indentured servitude paradigm of the American educational system does not serve it's citizens or the nation as a whole.
The paradigm makes no logical sense unless you look at it from a economical standpoint. If this were a trial, I (being prosecutor) would be trying to establish motive. The question would then be; Who benefits from a less educated society? At this epoch in American history, where businesses are getting larger and more consolidated, there is lessening need for a highly-skilled workforce. The systems and processes are so tuned and established, that a monkey could be plugged into it and efficient functionality would be preserved. And monkeys are what our educational system is churning out.
Now, having established those premises, we have to ask; If education is not required for the job market on a need basis, then on what basis is it (education) required for the discussion of affordability to be anything other than moot? The education system as we know it has shifted from a purposeful activity toward the advancement of humankind, to a commerce-based free-market exchange. A bachelors degree is worth X amount of $, a Masters X amount and so on. In this paradigm college affordability is a proper argument to have.
The value of education has been calculated by actuaries, planned into bottom-lines by CFO's, and invested in by students with the hope of high returns. The market-based super-structure has usurped the "Good" of education, for self-improvement as benefit paradigm. Hence, you have less and less students pursuing the Liberal Arts. Sociologist's are not as marketable as MBA's! (Retraction: Sociologist's are recruited by major retail firms to figure out ways to market to you). Education for the sake of knowledge is a dying ethic.
Now that we know what the purpose and value of education is in our brave new world, we can haggle about cost vs. return. I propose the Federal Government, via the Department of Education subsidize ALL loans, mitigating the high interest rates for all loans. To do this all grant money would be shifted to subsidization efforts. This would allow for higher payouts (covering 100% of college costs for all students). This accomplishes three key goals of education finance; Availability, Coverage and Fairness. Because as we know, this is a market, therefore we all must pay to play. When we have our "Big Brother" haggling with banks for best prices, I'm betting he'll make offers they can't refuse.
