Sorry for the delayed response, but it's been a busy day at work. This got way more traction than I expected but I did read every single comment and would like to respond with some of my thoughts. I don't know how to quote replies or break up the replies to specific parts as some of y'all have done (long time TexAgs lurker, fairly new with an actual account) so I'll just break it up into paragraphs.
I agree that if you agree to a loan then you should repay it. My concern was the predatory nature in which the loan was obtained. Yes, the students that take out the loans are of "legal age," but are not magically more financially literate than a 17 year old who need to have a parent/guardian/someone else guarantee that the loan be paid back. I understand the cut off for legal age has to be somewhere, but a better job in our education at the high school level I think may help with this. Learning how to do taxes, opening an investment account, how to take out a loan, seeking out a mortgage and the home buying process. All of these are vital life skills in today's world that no one teaches you unless you have a great parent or mentor to teach them to you. Many suggested removing the government from the student loan business entirely. Specifically, I think
Sarge91 brought up a valid point "Subsidizing tuition with free, easy, federal dollars results in skyrocketing tuition, as the universities realize the government will pay the tab no matter how high. So, as in health insurance, a third-party payer always skews the economics and results in increased prices. Gov't created this problem, and now we are stuck holding the bag." I would like to see more information on this approach but this could be a valid option.
Sarge 91 also suggested that the age for which a federal student loan can be taken out be set to 21 much like how you have to be 25 to rent a car. This is another solution that may be worth exploring. (On a separate note, I was quite surprised how many of y'all brought up "But you're old enough to choose your gender." Do y'all think about this often? Is this what's always at the forefront of your mind. Bc to me, that has nothing to do with this.) Many have mentioned removing the interest rates from the loans. I, personally, would be in favor of this idea. But I do see the counterargument about the lender making money too. Again, I do not claim to be some accounting or finance guru, just willing to explore options. Those of you who claimed to be as fiscally responsible when they were 17-18 years old are kidding themselves. It's easy to see the past through the lenses that your experience has gotten you today.
twk mentioned the cost-benefit analysis of obtaining a degree. I agree that getting a college degree shouldn't be for everyone. Many trade schools are a better option (and frankly may earn you more money in the long run). But many 17-20 year olds have no idea what they want to do with their lives and our society has placed a premium on getting a college education as that was the surest way of getting a "leg up" in the world (which I think is no longer the case.). But how many of us were told from a very young age that we must go to college to be successful? I agree that higher education should be geared towards career betterment and not as "baseline knowledge that people get in K-12 education." But that is not what my generation and many kids today are being taught. I do think it will start to change soon as the older people from my generation's kids are getting towards college age. After going through all this, I will not emphasize college as a requirement for my kids. If they want to be lawyers, doctors, engineers, fine by me. But other professions that are just as rewarding personally and financially can be achieved without a college degree. And teachers most certainly do need a Bachelor's degree to teach in Texas (in addition to completing an Educator Preparation Program and passing Certification Exams).
However, an argument that I do have a problem with is
Loren Visser saying that any nurse or physical therapist making less than $80,000 is lazy or works part time. That is moronic and, honestly, just not the case. I know because I work in healthcare. Many in these professions are not making more than $40/hour. And the suggestion that if they just work a little harder than they can make more money is insulting. Hospitals refuse to pay more so many are choosing to go the travel route and taking three to six month contracts elsewhere as hospitals would rather pay a travel nurse $50+/hour instead of giving their nurses already on staff a raise. I digress and this is another conversation for another time, but this really struck a chord with me as these are my coworkers and if this pandemic has shown anything, it's that they are not lazy.
The Master Plan talks about multibillion dollar companies getting tax cuts doesn't "add" to the deficit. I would think it indirectly does. Companies that don't pay their taxes or pay less means the government has less money to spend on public goods and services which I would argue indirectly adds to the deficit.
And then there's the "root cause" being the schools themselves. I like the idea of colleges being held accountable for the product they put out. Y'all are right that schools simply do not care. It's all about being a diploma machine and getting as many students through there as possible. Not sure how feasible the implementation of an accountability system would be, but I think an option like that may be worth exploring. Having the colleges be a co-signer on the loans is another intriguing option.
Lastly, I would like to highlight
OldHeathen's response of "the almost insurmountable debt some young people acquire" This was my main point and reason for starting this thread in the first place.
"WE ALL should want to help our young folks get a leg up on life." I think this sentiment is true with most of the responders to this thread and I thank y'all for the continued discussion.
-FTA c/o 2013
