Well we know the cause of the high inflation rate in education (government subsidies) so we know what the problem is. Of course we can't assume that nothing else would've occured to cause high inflation rates, but it is better to address the problem we know exists than the one we can only speculate of. In the 60's the economy was (relatively) strong, meaning that growth was very high. It wasn't absolutely stronger though. I'd rather live today than in the 60's to be honest. The cost of living is cheaper and I have more opportunities. It just so happens that growth is slower/non-existant in this era. Anyway, that's besides the point. In periods like the 90's, which had higher stability than the 60's, we can still see huge inflation rates for all education, but especially higher education, and of course we are speaking relative to the average rate of inflation (which reflects the monetary policies of the era/accomodates for the changing economic viability.) 

How would I make college more affordable? Introduce it to a competitive market in which lower prices force educators to reduce costs and disables their ability to change prices. The colleges will become price-takers and not price-makers. How does one do that? Reduce the amount of subsidies colleges gain. Honestly I think online education and developing community colleges are already ahead legislation in this matter. Universities are so frightened by these entities that they beg the state to remove them from the scene in addition to creating very strict and irrational accreditation policies. Subsidies also have the secondary effect of allowing students to major in whichever failed/unsucessful subject they want to, on the dime of others. There are a plethora of psychology, english, and liberal arts majors for example who have no job opportunites after they graduate, in turn, forcing them to default on loans and reducing the viability of the system for everyone. Without subsidies people would make more sound-proof decisions when they choose their major because it's their money and not debt they are spending. People would only take loans if they felt that they needed them. As it is now there is a student loan bubble not so much unlike the housing bubble of 2008 caused by government "stimulation." 

Thats an interesting perspective but do you think any government help is necessary. What if someone is smart enough to go to university but can't afford it? even if prices fell dramatically with an open market. 

I would like to see such a system work in practice but i think for a free market to work you need a level playing field at first (especially in education) which is quite ironic but thats just how i see it. I can see how governments rig markets though to help certain companies (everything not just education) but they need to be in certain areas like welfare and education. But unfortunately like anything they get corrupt. Also i just struggle to see how a truely free market can sustain itself if its not free for all parties involved. We were supposed to have free markets in the 19th century but workers rights were non-existent and trade unions were seen as agitators with many being illegal. It was free for bosses, not workers back then  

Actually you don't need to start with egalitarian conditions. Think of the transition from mercantilism (in which all property was owned by the crown and essentially leased to individuals) to more propertarian systems. It actually increased the standards of living and made societies more egalitarian, not less. Why? Because the ability to change what you were born with at birth increased substantially. As for the 19th century, it was no where near a free-market, not even in the United States. For example, government controlled most, if not all fiscal policy in the 19th century. Government also gave special priveleges to the railroad companies, helped enforce warfare against strikers with police ( originally created to protect the private property of the rich.) Government was protectionist and limited international trade for states and individuals.

So on and so on. In a free market, a truly free market, workers would have the right to strike. Any market in which force is used to prevent this is unfree. 

Government doesn't have to be in education (and I'd argue healthcare as well, but we will stay on topic.) Look at places like Hong Kong and Japan where government takes a more secondary role. They produce some of the best educated students in the world. 

That may be true but they work their students into the ground and then wonder why suicides are so common. The other top education system is in Finland which takes the opposite approach as testing is very minimal (no test until 16) and the education system is made to help develop the individual student so they can get their aspiration. Finnish education is all completely state run but is well funded and managed with all education being free at the point of need. It seems to be more about what the student wants than getting them to work in a corporation or factory somewhere.