I'm not sure I agree with the solutions though. Making student loan debt dischargeable doesn't make a lot of economic sense. We're talking about 17-year-olds with no income and no collateral. Why would any lender want to be in this business? Who will lend to students if the debt is dischargeable?
The article's solution is to essentially make the school the co-guarantor of the loan, such that the school absorbs part of the financial impact of student default. Ok, but now the school has a direct financial stake in the student's overall finances. Do you really want to have that kind of relationship with your school? Do you want an admissions process that is partially trying to decide if you're financially responsible? Do you want your school pressuring you to choose a more lucrative major? Do you want communications from your school reminding you that it's important to be making good financial decisions? If your school is co-guarantor of your loan, it's their business to make sure you're going to repay on time.
There has to be an element of responsibility that falls to the borrowers themselves. It's true that a 17-year-old does not have the experience to know for themselves how much debt is reasonable, especially when they cannot necessarily predict their future earnings. But there has to be some incentive to borrow less. I don't think it's healthy if student can borrow with abandon, safe in knowing that they can just discharge the debt in a few years if it doesn't work out.
Ideally students would be voting with their feet, and would make it clear to colleges that the cost of tuition is a significant factor in their decision. But I guess prestige and tradition are so powerful that people will want to go to name-brand colleges no matter the cost.