I don’t necessarily buy the idea that student loans are driving price increases, but there’s a tangible difference between subsidizing producers versus consumers (corn subsidies are generally the former, student loans are the latter).

If people couldn't get the loans the price wouldn't be that high, people don't have the money to pay it.

education is a highly inelastic good...couple that with essentially unlimited federally back loans and you get price increases year after year

Corn is an example of subsidized supply.

Government money increases the supply of corn, and drives the price down. Hence, corn, and products derived from it -- high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn-fed beef, Nu Metal bands, etc -- are cheaper.

College is an example of subsidized demand.

Government money increases the number of prospective students, by lowering the financial barrier to attend university. The result being that the cost of a university education has risen, drastically, while the quality of that education has plummeted.

education is not a commodity in the same sense as corn

and it’s much more of an inelastic good than corn

the difference between 50k in tuition and expenses and 55k will not change demand a meaningful amount, and universities exploit the fact that education is inelastic and the money is coming from a guaranteed source regardless of the student’s ability to pay upfront.

The reason for the subsidies is to support farmers by offsetting what would otherwise be price decreases, so...