[msandford]

> Somehow you have to pay for those who can't pay on their own: either interest rates go up, number of loans goes down--neither of which is particularly good outcomes.

This presumes that college prices exist in a vacuum and that if less money is available colleges won't lower prices. I mean, in the short run the market isn't very flexible, but in the long run it is.

Pretending that college education won't respond to market forces is just as foolish as pretending that anything else won't.

[oneloop]

You're using an "at equilibrium" argument.

The things you described might take 10-20+ years. Between lenders tightening up and college prices coming down, you have a generation of poor people that can't go to college.

[philovivero]

> The things you described might take 10-20+ years. Between lenders tightening up and college prices coming down, you have a generation of poor people that can't go to college.

And so...?

Not being flippant. But if an entire generation of poor kids doesn't go to college, doesn't that mean employers have to figure out other ways to measure probability of success?

What if that generation takes online self-directed courses? What if that generation turns out to be way more self-starting and independent? What if that turns out to be the greatest thing to happen since the early 1900's when "make factory workers" became our educational mantra?

Honestly, I could see this being a great thing.

[corin_]

> Not being flippant. But if an entire generation of poor kids doesn't go to college, doesn't that mean employers have to figure out other ways to measure probability of success?

To an extent yes, but in many situations the easier solution will be to not consider the poor kids and just hire the kids who could afford to go to university. I.e. how it was in years gone by, and not a desirable outcome - but maybe it would be different now in the tech age we live in.