Gee, I thought that the resolution of the issue was: (1) Before 30 years ago or so, a student paid only about 1/3rd of what a college education really cost. T

Gee, I thought that the resolution of the issue was: (1) Before 30 years ago or so, a student paid only about 1/3rd of what a college education really cost. The rest was from 'overhead' taken from research grants, gifts, endowment income (from gifts), government funding (say, state universities). (2) Good students with little or no money got various forms of financial assistance -- scholarships, work-study, etc. (3) Wealthy students still paid only the 1/3rd. So, someone got a bright idea: Why should wealthy students pay only 1/3rd instead of 100%? So, why not let the 'list price' to the students be the full cost? Then wealthy students will pay the full cost and others will get 'scholarships' based on need and academic qualifications. So, the 'list price' went from 1/3rd of the real cost to 100% of the real cost, that is, up by a factor of 3, that is, 300%. The rest of the increases were due to better prof salaries, higher AdFunk salaries and more AdFunks, better facilities, etc. But if have a really good media 'story', why give an explanation that would end the suspense, interest, drama, sense of scandal, etc. and, thus, end the story? And lose the eyeballs and ad revenue? Gotta be kidding!