If we're going to be forgiving loans, we shouldn't be giving them out in the first place. Otherwise, we're going to be in the same spot in one generation's time.
Then suddenly we have a society that does not appreciate art or dance or whatever other subjects were dropped.
This is the slippery slope - creditors get to decide what others know and learn and pay attention to. Knowledge is no longer widely available - the experts (professors) might still teach at a college, but will be forced to either pivot or leave when the university slashes their programs. They could teach privately or for free, but I am guessing the number of students who they would normally teach drops significantly.
Once there are too few people in the arts, demand will incentivize more people to get into that field.
Moreover, don't we currently have a problem where we don't have enough students going into STEM?
If this is the goal, then the far simpler solution is for the government to explicitly budget a set number of grants for the most promising students in those fields to study specific subjects that supposedly have social value but low economic returns.
It certainly doesn't make sense to subsidize loans for hundreds of marginal students to study "business administration" or "hospitality" at a tier four regional college to get one brilliant dance major at Carnegie Mellon.
Far more efficient for the government to say "we have 800 fully funded dance scholarships, 4000 art history scholarships, 2000 classics scholarships, etc. We're going to assign these scholarships to the most promising graduating high school students in these fields. And the scholarships will only be paid for top-tier universities that have demonstrated consistent excellence in these areas."
That would by far subsidize a much higher level of cultural discourse at a tiny fraction of the cost of the current student loan system.
The assumption that you need a college degree in art to appreciate art is kinda ... out there.
It's no change. That was already the premise of underwriting non-dischargeable loans.
> Then suddenly we have a society that does not appreciate art or dance or whatever other subjects were dropped.
Again, no change. If they were valued enough to support an expensive college degree, career prospects would be less dim.
Isn't that the case already? Aren't most university students looking to increase their career prospects? Wasn't that the whole point of telling generations of kids to go to college, so that they'll get better jobs?
1) I'm going to, absent some massive political shift, vote for Democrats for the rest of my life anyway. So, they don't really have to play for my vote.
2) Playing around with boring stuff like tweaking market forces around by changing how loans work is sufficiently indirect that blame can probably be dodged.
3) We're all aware that the current system is pretty bad, a new solution that at least purports to be an attempt at something better can be sold to me pretty easily.
3a) Keep in mind that, at least in the STEM departments, the instructors are there for essentially irrational reasons -- they could make much more money in industry. At least some of the motivation is to produce interesting science and help students, paycheck be damned. Changes that hurt the last while helping the first two will probably be accepted with only minimal grumbling as long as they aren't too painful.
In any case, if there is a specific need for specific research, I'm sure the gov can figure out a way to incentivize particular useful tracks which the market ignores. Grants programs, etc.
I want both, but I have a hard time disapproving of more focus on training students, as they are the true customers of universities.
Have people really interested in teaching rather than research teach the 100/200-level courses. The scientists next door can teach seniors and juniors, and show up for guest lectures.
Good, there is nothing wrong with all that. Degrees should exist so people find jobs in the real world. Research can be funded by the government itself. Absolutely no need for government backed student loans in either cases. People who want to go to private universities can get a regular bank loan, that's how it works in the rest of the world. The US system is unique and predatory.
Universities are tax exempt, and highly profitable. Many have endowments over $1 billion [1]. Yet, the average cost in state is $10,000 per year, and almost $30,000 if out of state. For comparison, the tuition at Oxford College, one of the most prestigious institutions in the world, is $12,000 per year.
Student loans may be considered even predatory [2], adding to the injury.
There should be a better mechanism to allow people to go to college in the US, without subjecting them to half a lifetime of debt.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_univers...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/navient-settles-predator...
"Universities are actually hedge funds that happen to have a school attached to them".
Right? You're vociferously complaining about that frequent game played by corporations with outsized lobbying abilities to get loans that aren't really ever expected to be paid? How much was that in the grand scheme of printing money by the fed, a billion?
Or are you angry about little poor people getting a pittance of money in the grand scheme of things?
It is so strange how much people shrug off corporate handouts, but get up in arms when poor folks get a pittance from the government.
Edit: my tone was a bit harsh, probably because I get this knee jerk reaction.
It's probably because corporations are like gods. You can't kill them. They are omnipresent. With data hoovering, they are some form of omniscient. They are tireless, sleepless, don't require air, water, or food. The modern way to kill a corporation is probably so serpentine that it puts the best D&D plot to kill a god to shame. They don't technically have a physical body. They have servants, followers, a clergy, and power. They can cast "summon army of retainer lawyers" and send you to hell.
Who are we to question if the god of money hands the god of cars magic printed-but-never-actually-printed numbers that aren't based in something?
If you can earn $53k plus living expenses in after tax dollars all while going to school then you are not the typical college student. Someone would be subsidizing your education if you get out of that debt free.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITT_Technical_Institute#Legal_...
> On August 25, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education banned ITT Tech from enrolling students who receive federal aid. The Department also doubled the surety funds that ITT Tech was required to have, and to produce those funds within 30 days. Stock markets reacted with a punishing 35% drop, which triggered a halt in trading, raising concerns about whether ITT Educational would be able to survive this latest decision.[73] On September 6, 2016, ITT Tech ceased operations and closed all of its locations, issuing a statement that attributed the closing to the Department of Education's actions.[28]
You have to work for a state, local, federal or tribal government, or a 501c3 (non-profit) for ten years in order to qualify.
However, since the U.S. is a country dedicated to the benefit of its citizens then it's absolutely okay to provide loans as a form of social welfare, and accept a higher than normal rate of default. After all, providing these loans instead of the market was the entire point of the exercise.