Taxpayers do this already: it's called grade school and high school. The public has an interest in an educated populace.

I'm not seeing any direct correlation between the cost of an education program and the earning power of graduates from the program, so in the absence of that evidence, I couldn't say with any confidence that tying subsidies to earning power will do much at all to bring program costs down.

If I were to guess, what's more likely to happen is these programs would be canceled wholesale at low-margin institutions, leading to an effect opposite that which you describe: liberal arts programs would be available only at the institutions where graduates are more likely to obtain well-paying jobs, meaning Ivy League and other prestigious (and expensive) institutions.

Simply limiting access to federal loans across the board, rather than subsidizing STEM/MBA degrees at the expense of liberal arts, would probably do much more to incentivize the reduction of post-secondary education costs without completely ditching the notion of a liberal education.

The way the formula works the average or median (whichever is higher) annual income can be lower for lower cost institutions. So for example, SUNY Binghamton University could pass the GE rule if it's graduates make at least $40,000/year. Likewise, Nassau Community College would need its graduates to secure $23,500/year jobs. They'd both be fine.

Where this rule would pinch would be high cost institution that nonetheless produce graduates that enter low paying jobs.

Taking your premise that society has an interest in an educated populace, and that includes people studying liberal arts at the tertiary level, does it have an interest in paying for the most expensive providers of that education?

I don't see it as subsidizing STEM at the expense of liberal arts. I see it as giving loans to people who are likely to use those loans to increase their earning power, and therefore have the ability to repay said loans. It doesn't have to be STEM specifically, there are well paying jobs outside of that as well.

What benefit does society get from having lots of graduates with $100 to $200k in student loans that they'll struggle to make payments on for the next 20 years? Education is perfectly fine, but if the goal is to encourage lots of people to study liberal arts for the sake of learning, then let's find a way to do that that doesn't cost $50k per year.

>>Taxpayers do this already: it's called grade school and high school. The public has an interest in an educated populace.

If society has an interest in an educated populace, then we should go ahead and make college free for everyone by funding it directly with taxpayer money, versus indirectly with student loans.

Where do you draw the line? Would you have the public subsidize an education in tarot reading? In duck duck goose? These are fine amusing hobbies, just as literature is a fine diversion, but the economic prospects of a skilled duck duck goose player are pretty grim, just as the economic prospects of a literature buff have become. Let people who want to explore their hobbies do so on their own dime without society suggesting to them that it's reasonable to take out a $100k loan to do so. Then they won't be wondering why they are unemployed and $100k in debt when they finish their studies.

> I'm not seeing any direct correlation between the cost of an education program and the earning power of graduates from the program

In Canada, the degrees with high earning potential (HBA, CS, Engineering) cost 2-3x more than the other programs.

It's really quite aggravating because they charge you based on your declared program, even if all the courses you're taking are actually arts courses.