On your 2 point....I feel like that's part of the problem, getting the shaft for being responsible.
I never considered your "aside" on point 3, but that's def a possibility.

I'm curious though why you see it as an unlikely policy change in the next decade or 2? If educ inflation outpaces total inflation by 2-3 points, using rule of 72, Real costs adjusted for inflation double every 24-36 years, or every generation. If college costs are already causing 6 fig student loans that may never get paid off, it doesn't bode well for the next 20-30 years (next gen). Either the cost curve has to bend significantly with a change in policy towards subsidies and loans, or higher-ed will be subsidized. If not, it will simply create a case of haves and have-nots. If we take the fictional case study of suzy and mary who both come from middle/upper class....suzy has college paid for upon graduating in 2035. She almost immediately starts acquiring appreciating assets and equities. By her mid 30's, she's "rich." Mary on the other hand graduates with $150k of college debt. She makes the same salary as suzy, but much of her salary goes to interest accruing debts instead of appreciating assets. By her mid 30's, she's hoping to break even with a less than great credit score.
It just seems like something has to give, and unfortunately, policy is very myopic and wont address the long term problem of the cost curve.