A glut in supply of qualifications is only half the picture. If a government isn't going to invest in an economy that provides concrete places to use a given skill set, then a glut can result from that too. That's true whether people start training today to do Philosophy or to be plumbers. While we may only need so many of each today, policy has a big impact on exactly how many we need a few years from now -- when people are actually coming out with those degrees.
Or, I guess you could argue that since the economy changes so fast, perhaps we should change the degree structure, forget specialization, and only take 2 years of anything in school. Not sure how well foreign languages or aerospace engineering can be acquired to the point needed for good R&D or long-term planning on company time, but who knows.
There are a lot of jobs where a BA in something counts, and that can already mean significant loans for a lower middle-income family. Yet we also have a fairly flexible philosophy that says individuals are supposed to pursue what will be fulfilling (or hopefully profitable in however many years, who knows really!) -- but either way, the burden is on the youth to take the risk and soak it up. American Dream (note significant overlap with Marxism -- the idea that doing something you wanted should lead to higher productivity) -- as casino.
Then there are higher-paying jobs that have long and challenging roads, like medicine or law. The schools often have high tuition for those as well, and some I've heard offer less in the way of aid packages than liberal arts often does. They operate on the assumption that people will be able to pay back, but I can't imagine that everyone is succeeding in those programs or all finding equivalent wages if they do.