| HN Mirror

> don't understand why you're doing a bottom-up analysis

Didn't you? I thought I made it clear in my post. My post wasn't about the level of debt (as I referenced in the post, it's $35k for 2015), it's about the financial burden of studying, which may look not so significant when you see $35k debt, but hides the notion that it's because college students do more than we expect of them.

For example, where I live we have 36 weeks of college. (I've read in the US it varies, but can be 30 weeks, e.g. when you have semesters of 15, or trimesters of 10 weeks). But let's say 36. Also we have 1800 hours of studyload here (i.e. european study credits are valid and recognised everywhere in the EU, and they're about 30 hours of studyload each, and you need 60 per academic term, or 1800 hours).

So now we're looking at 1800 / 36, or 50 hours dedicated to education per week. That's how our education is planned and designed. Again it doesn't mean students practically put in that time, but that's the design, which means if they do less than that, then there are consequences.

Then you add the fact that there is variation among studies, some are easy and you can get away with spending less than that without affecting your learning, some end up harder than average (often the studies we want to steer people to) and can require more than that base level figure of 50 hours.

Then consider you need to work 2 or 3 days extra part-time, and we're looking at a ridiculous burden on students. And you still end up with tens of thousands in debt, going up by $150 every month due to interest alone, on average.

And that, I'd think, has consequences, and I already mentioned that I see and saw this among my peers. I saw people who spent more time working than studying. I saw people pick easy majors so that they could get a degree without having to dedicate more than normally considered full-time on just studying, and then work besides it. I saw people simply choose not to study. And all of these things likely reduce the debt figure to $35k. i.e. I think if we made university 100 times more expensive, the debt figure wouldn't change radically, not even by 10x, because people change their choices.

And yes I do think the things I mentioned above are a waste. I'm not saying working a job is a waste per se, you're misunderstanding. I'm saying spending more time working than studying (not in an office by the way, we're talking about a cafe or nightclub for most students where I live), choosing an easy major, not studying because by design your studies require you to spend 50 hours, and you can't manage that while also working). That's a waste.

And then it pays off to do a bottom-up analysis, the costs and opportunity costs of studying are $80k on a 50% scholarship? And people end up with just $35k debt? Then you can wonder how that affected their studies, if they needed support from parents etc.

> I personally think it's entirely reasonable that people should work at least part-time to pay for their education and it's been happening for generations

Oh to some extent I think it's reasonable. I think you'll also agree with me to some extent the work-next-to-study we require of some isn't reasonable, and that for some it is a waste, for some it does negatively affect their education, for some it does create burn outs and depressions and suicide, for some it does prohibit them from studying all together, and that the $35k figure makes it look as if student financial burdens aren't all that bad, more than it should. That's my point and I think we can agree on that as much as I agree with your point that some part time work is reasonable, and can often be very beneficial.