With a 20-year progressive increase in college tuitions, certain undergraduate and graduate degrees are becoming less and less financially sustainable for students. This has left thousands of graduates with up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt that might linger with them for the rest of their lives.

But wait, isn’t going to college supposed to lead to financial stability and an array of job prospects that counteract this debt? The fact of the matter is that such egregious tuition prices have presented a recipe for disaster for students embarking on pricey educational journeys with minimal opportunity to earn anywhere near to what they spend.

An image depicting a graduate broadcasting her Venmo for funding towards her student loans (businessinsider.com).

One of the most prestigious universities in the world, Colombia University, offers a master’s in film degree (MFA) that forces students to take out a median debt of $181,000 only to earn an annual median salary of $30,000. Why would students volunteer to spend 6x of their projected annual salary to receive a degree that only further puts them at a disadvantage? No one would want to put themselves into a pit of debt that is so suffocating that it might be impossible to surmount.

The same could be seen with most liberal arts degrees at every institution. The recent boom in STEM-based degrees has seen a proportional increase in salary expectations with this field, but for graduates with degrees in the humanities, the salary expectations are less desirable. If you aren’t enrolled in a prestigious university or have superior connections to land a high-paying job, the degree and all the hard work you are putting in might be for nothing.

A graphic illustrating the student debt problem in the United States (prudential.com).

The question then becomes, how should universities then incentivize students to choose these majors other than just by interest or passion? Creating a “tiered” tuition system that bases degree costs on median expected salary present an option that would counteract this phenomenon. Here students will receive discounted tuition if they choose a degree that leads to a field that is less lucrative. This would eliminate the student loan problem that has become progressively worse with current general tuition increases.

How could universities then recoup revenue lost with discounted tuitions with certain majors? Students choosing to embark on majors that lead to higher-paying careers could make up the difference, but how is that fair? It really isn’t because the front-end costs of loans also come with interest payments that could complicate future plans. Yes, this solution might be equitable, but it also has unintended consequences such as deterring others from choosing to go into STEM fields based on higher tuition costs.

$1.53 trillion (cuna.org).

$1.58 trillion. That’s the amount of student debt that exists in the United States today. While a majority of this debt is owed by future medical professionals, the resounding amount of it that is never paid off is owed by those who received a degree in the humanities. How should this problem be addressed where select tuitions are subsidized, but NOT at the expense of others? Is there a solution that presents equity for those who are pursuing their passion?