Actually, it is easier than ever. The internet provides plenty of resources when it comes to the demand and market price of certain occupations. 

For example, 

http://www.glassdoor.com/index.htm

Education is not a free-market, and that is why it is so hard to predict. The equillibrium price changes based on location. In urban cities you find shortages of educators, while in suburban areas you find surpluses. What one can predict is the unpredictability of the occupation, and that is why teacher unions are some of the largest, despite it being a government-financed occupation (no private unions come close.) 

Your friends must be missing out on a lot of opportunities. Computer Scientists are especially high demand occupants . Physicists know very well that if they want to do physics they need a PhD, and if they get a PhD they will make it pretty easily - somewhere (I'm a physics major.) If they don't get a PhD, there are many companies hiring from finance sectors to industry, to lower education, just for the analytic skills one gains as a physics major.So again I doubt your "friends" are representative considering what I know of the field. As for biologists, they have even a wider scope of applications. There is a huge industry in biology, plenty of biologists need in academia, and overall biology is one of the "safer" sciences to go into. Lawyers might not be in demand like they used to be, but in today's age in the rising demand of civil disputes, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer can't find a good job. 

As for your last sentence, that explains it right there. There are more, and therefore the supply of college graduates is so much greater, making the equillibrium price so much less. Your value depends on your uniqueness and ability to provide a role that nobody else can provide, but which people demand. How much you are paid depends on these criteria. If there are many more teachers, then you as an individual teacher will have so many more to compete with, and unless you excel, the demand for you specifically is less. The more competitive the field, the more you have to give. That is just how nature works. 

Again, look at the spending per student statistic. That has nothing to do with population. 

Absolutely despicable.

They're certainly not the only despotic, hegemonic institution to participate in this public robbery, mind. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

Of course Wall Street does, it is by its very nature corporatist, and it supports corporatism (the merger of corporations and states.) Wall-street continues to support legislators and regulators who support corporatism in opposition to free-markets. 

With your first point right, education in the US is defintely not a free market since a great chuck of it is state controlled and regulated. While you are right about the availabilty of broad jobs. my friend who has a physics degree is married with 2 children. That is a factor for him being unable to properly pursue a PhD. now my friends aside, how many college student study in college for the sciences. if a student were to study finance or accounting. What are the chaces for a job despite the broadness of the field?

I need to go to bed...

If a student prioritizes job security, and chooses to major in an unsecure field, then it is his or her fault for making a poor decision considering his or her value of job security. There is a demand for students in STEM fields, but unfortunately there is no domestic supply, so corporations and even governments (look at NASA's employees, for example) look outside of the U.S for qualified persons. As for financing and accounting, both are relatively high demand fields which have experienced rising equilibrium prices as the years have gone by (they are more valuable and therefore paid more.) Honestly, the focus in the job search shouldn't be only about the degree though. Companies are looking for individuals with unique qualities that can bring much more than just their degree. The degree is the pre-requisite, not the determinant. 

"Corporatism" is the natural evolution of capitalism whenever there is a state. It is a market advantage to use the state, and it is a political advantage to use the markets.

Fascism (and thus the creation of an exceptionally bad state) is the natural evolution of capitalism without a state. Anarchy and private hierarchy are incompatible. 

The fallacy that the "free market" can exist in a bubble outside of politics needs to be laid to rest. If you want to preserve the neoclassical status quo, you first need to acknowledge that fact, so that serious legislative, constitutional, and cultural changes can be considered.

The crash was extremely multifaceted, but was aggravated by the use of nebulous derivatives that weren't really tangible.

Many things harm the general economy to the benefit of an extreme few.

Oil futures are a big personal peeve of mine. The true supply/demand cost of oil is far less than what the market price usually is due to speculators driving the costs up artificially. I think futures should still be in play, but only for those actually taking physical delivery (as the futures trading was initially created for in the first place).

A great example is the oft-quoted 'Gas was $1.80 a gallon when Obama took office'. Well, yes, that's sort of true. But only because the economy was crashed to the point that the speculators fled the market temporarily, exposing the true supply/demand rate. People didn't stop driving in 2008, trucks didn't stop rolling, planes didn't stop flying, the contraction might have accounted for a 1-2% drop in true demand, but not enough to crash the price of gas from close to $4/gallon before the banking crisis to less than half of that.

And what happened when the scare was over? The speculators came back and boom, prices jacked up again.

How many Americans benefit from a handful of speculators raking them over the coals? Not very many. It would be an absolutely fantastic policy to lock out those vampires, but it will never happen. Big banking owns the Democrats and Republicans, and people who think there is any difference between the parties beyond window dressing stun me with their naivete. We lost the country ages ago thanks to selling our politicians to the highest bidders.