[BearsAreCool]

I have to at least partially disagree with #1 being a benefit. Universities and loans for universities should not be encouraging students to waste many years of their life for a degree which does little to help them get meaningful employment. Additionally, with at least the american student loan system as I am more familiar with it, neither the university or the bank offering the loan faces any repurcussions for encouraging and financing these bad decisions, with the government guaranteeing the debt will be paid.

[idrios]

In regards to your first point, most US students when they go to college don't have the life experience to know which degrees will give them meaningful employment. A kid who was passionate about reading and was encouraged by their teachers and parents to follow their passions would, unsurprisingly, be likely to pursue a degree in English literature. After they've graduated the real world hits them like a sack of bricks and they can't find a way to earn a living.

At this point they've lost those 4 years of their life, end up with unreliable sources income (gig economy, part time work, borrow from family, etc), they're bogged down with crippling debt, and the world tells them it's their own fault. They even feel deep down that it is their fault, but now they're resentful and bitter because they're suffering despite that they had been working hard just doing what they were told to do all along.

With this proposed kind of loan forgiveness, the years are still lost to them but at least they're not crippled with debt as they try to get out of the hole they've found themselves in.

I also think a system like this incentivizes universities to help students make money and be productive after college. Under the current system, schools will shake down anybody for what money they can get. If tuition is based on future earnings, the university is going to try to get the student to make as much money as they possibly can.

In fact, this system would likely swing the pendulum so far the other direction that it might kill colleges of art and literature because they would suddenly be deemed unprofitable to the university.

[rjf72]

Just to hit on your last point (that result oriented loans could kill "unprofitable" university programs) I'd add that universities existed for centuries when, relative to the entire population, practically nobody attended them.

This "businessification" of university education is an extremely new thing. I know you didn't intend it this way but that comment in a way hits me like when the music industry was trying to claim that piracy would kill music. We could pass a law that any and all music could be copied indefinitely and for free which would indeed kill the music as a mass industry, but music would undoubtedly continue to thrive. We just wouldn't have so many Justin Biebers or Britney Spears. Darn.

And so too for education. Get rid of systems which motivate profit driven education (which is no longer an issue just at universities which are overtly for profit), and you don't destroy education - you destroy the artificial facade masquerading as education.

[9dev]

That's an interesting thought. Amusingly I just assumed I'd still pay for Spotify in that case, since they save me the time of maintaining and carrying my library around. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that industries may shift or change fundamentally, but we're far better off with these changes ultimately.

[chottocharaii]

Indeed. Arts degrees have suffered large funding cuts in Australia in recent years. Perhaps for the reasons you describe.

[Haydos585x2]

In the Australian case neither the university or a bank is financing the loan. It's all the government. Most of the universities are public as well so there's less incentive for profit, although it does still exist.

Most people will probably earn over the minimum HELP repayment barrier over their lifetime and if they don't then I don't think they should be saddled with debt.