The issue of unaffordability of universities if loans were drastically reduced would be a painful transition, but only a transition. Universities are unsustainable from a customer perspective as they are, and something needs to give.

A 4-year degree should also not be as widely required as it currently is, which is something else that needs to correct, which would happen with a collapse of graduates.

But as mentioned upthread, if we simply keep things as they are and throw good money after bad, people are going to have to be in school until they're 30 in order to meet the minimum requirements for mediocre jobs. Better to have some tough times to weather, given that you can always enroll later in life after things have settled, assuming it's something around a 5-year correction.

> But at the same time shutting out the poor from college unless they're also straight-A students and somehow magically come from an area with good schools despite being poor...

Is this better or worse than the credential treadmill and a lifetime servicing debt? At least when college was cheap in the 70s, you could pay for it with a summer job and part time work during school.

> more aggressive about weeding out people who are not cut out for school

This would never happen.

If you've read Debt: The first 5000 Years, historically, debt has been one of the biggest factors in enslaving the poor. I think we'd be much better off with a system of credit instead of debt. For example, maybe instead of borrowing to go to school, a college gets 10% of your future wages for 5 years.

> But at the same time shutting out the poor from college unless they're also straight-A students and somehow

So, stop federally guaranteeing (and issuing) student loans (which mostly don't go to the poor) and increase need-based, and public-service-based, grants. Widely available no-need loans drive up prices but also insulate people from the immediate effects at a time when they are cognitively least able to appropriately assess long-term costs.