I think the big problem with this approach is that it disproportionately effects poor people. If person A studies underwater basket weaving but their parents cosign and have great credit and income, that's much less of a risk than person B who is studying engineering but has no assistance. 18 year olds have very little credit history or net worth so you are mostly looking at their parents situation. If there is a way to overcome that aspect, I would totally support the ability to discharge loans.
The "epic amount of fat to be trimmed" from the universities won't happen until the universities get off the guaranteed gov't money gravy train and have to adapt to a system where their success depends on their clients' success.
Other alternative like Make School and Holberton School are successfully using the model since about 3 years.
Plus there are criminal charges for fraud since it would be pretty obvious you took out the loan with this plan in mind.
Why not let the market sort out legislation? Or court cases? Or child custody?
This is a pretty sad statement of your personal values if you're serious.
It would be nice if we could all go to college to chase our childhood dreams, but the reality is that most of us need to prepare to support ourselves and, someday, a family. That's why I'm a software engineer and not a novelist, and that's why I got a CS degree and not a BFA in English.
Are the humanities "worthwhile?" Certainly. But should the average person drop $100,000 on a humanities degree? Absolutely not. And the fact that we're willing to bury children under that kind of debt so that they can get a Master's in French Opera or whatever is a crime.
And those are completely separate things, and should not be conflated. Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.
I'm saying that only rich people are able to study non-STEM stuff. I mean sure, a disadvantaged person can study literature or interpretive dance or whatever, but that choice will make them a debt slave with no significantly increased earning potential.
You don't need to go to college to improve yourself as a human being. You can be well-read and appreciative of the arts without paying $100,000. And for the vast majority of people, that is the only sensible course of action.
That system could potentially be a lot less unfair and a lot lower cost if the government didn't put its thumb on the scales in favour of lenders. This would be true even if the system was still unfair.
There's probably a deeper conversation to be had once the system is closer to neutral, but the point is that it isn't anything like neutral: it's blatantly biased against students.
We do. What do you think “money = speech” is?
It's an indication how deep the rot has gone. Tech culture is deeply sick.