Due to my selection of an expensive school, and my overindulgence in certain extracurricular activities, I will enter the labor market saddled in debt. None of my tuition will have been reduced or subsidized by the federal government, nor does it need to be, because the shocking price tag of my privately financed bachelor's degree will some day be worth every penny and more.

On the campaign trail and in Washington, there has been a lot of talk recently about the federal government's stepping in further to help combat the high and increasing costs of a college education. The most prevalent solution offered by politicians, including Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, is also the most appealing: Increase government subsidies of tuition to make college much cheaper or free.

As conventional wisdom goes, because the cost of a college education has risen so rapidly - outpacing the rate of inflation year after year - it has become a bad investment, and there is a need for federal assistance by way of subsidies and regulation. But as it often is, the conventional wisdom is more folly than fact.

It is true that there has been a substantial rise in university tuition since 1980 (in constant dollars, it has more than doubled). It is equally clear that higher tuition rates have made it hard for many students and their families to finance a college education.

But the net benefits of attaining a degree have risen far more rapidly than the costs. Taking into account the higher income gains realized by the completion of a degree, college has become more affordable in recent decades. Higher education has never been a better deal.

The numbers are clear. An average bachelor's degree worker will earn almost $1 million more over the course of a lifetime than a worker with only a high school diploma. An average professional degree holder will realize an additional $2.3 million in income. Even those graduates who earn far less will overcome their educational costs with the added income. Because of these dramatic added gains, students can finance a college education by borrowing against future income.

Let us assume that an average college graduate has shouldered the full costs of an education at one of the priciest colleges in the nation. Say, also, that the student has no parental assistance, no cosigner, and no credit, and so his or her private loans are granted at wildly unfavorable rates.

Even in this most extreme mythical case, the $1 million in added income would slowly but surely render the massive accumulated debt a wise economic decision. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker concluded recently on his blog: The debt of a student who borrows a lot by the standard of what the average student borrows is still usually not large relative to the earnings most students receive after working for several years.

Thus, there is no reason for government to subsidize a college education that is already eminently affordable.

Of course, students who intend to enter relatively low-paying fields cannot borrow against a future salary they will never earn. An efficient market determines that accountants are more valuable, and should be compensated more, than caretakers. Doctors are more valued than vegan caterers. In most cases, the economic allocation of labor makes practical sense.

As conventional wisdom often forgets, government subsidies are expensive and are funded by taxpayers. Ironically, those truly disadvantaged citizens who are unqualified to attend college end up footing part of the bill in taxes for the education subsidies that will make better-off Americans much better off. The opportunity cost of the education subsidy money is that the public dollars, which are supposed to be helping those who cannot afford economic advancement, are often not doing that.

Luckily, progressive-minded colleges have stepped in to offer their own market solution in the form of price discrimination, or as it is known in the industry, financial aid. The policy has allowed students from poorer families with solid academic records to attend good colleges while paying little tuition. These students have the benefit of leaving college with much less debt.

These financial-aid policies and the rise in average return on the college investment have naturally led to more degree-holders. The growing education level of the population has led to better wages, increased productivity, and higher living standards over the last century.

If the many benefits of a college education continue to outpace the costs, subsidies are not needed. Precious public funds are better spent increasing opportunities for the disadvantaged, those who - from a flaw in the educational system or a broken family life - will not even finish high school.

Real change will be difficult, for extending the rapidly rising rewards of higher education to the individuals who need it the most will take much more than a pie-in-the-sky subsidy proposal and a FAFSA form.