You mean, like now.
I'm paying for college now, and in a year, I'll be paying for two kids, and due to close age spacing, I'll be paying for two until 2024, when I drop back to one.
I'm glad I can afford it, but, truth be told, the pricing is absurd, the differences between private schools in the same brackets (Bates-Bowdoin-Colby, Williams-Wesleyan-Amherst, Bucknell-Lehigh-Lafayette, Kenyon-Oberlin-Denison, etc) HAS to result from price-fixing.
If it were free, everybody would be paying much higher taxes, but the travesty of non-STEM "education" really wouldn't change all that much, IMO. The horrible results predicted by the anti-Bernie people are already here, in spades.
A few decades ago, the Ivies were accused of price-fixing.
As in an above post, "Harvard" selects the best candidates.
In reality, at least at the time, each Ivy had its selected pool of desirable applicants, and colluded when a candidate was accepted by more than one to offer varying amounts of student aid to off-set any price differences between the schools.
They claimed it was to eliminate economics as a factor in a candidate choosing one over any other.
That was then, and this is now, and the economics of education has evolved to serve the financial desires of corrupt bureaucracies, and not society.