[maps]

> But barring shifting to a European model of college funding, I don't see the US allowing dischargeable loans, nor do I think they should, because the reality of it is that colleges won't reduce their rates nor increase their scholarships, they would just be completely out of reach of poor and middle class students.

The reality is that the they should be out of reach to poor or middle class students TODAY. They are not serving those people and are actively making their lives worse by saddling them with outrageous debt and no prospect of meaningful employment.

If the US changed bankruptcy it would force the colleges to change as well. Lenders are not going to be sending children into the workforce with zero chance to recoup that loan, and they are not going to want to bloat the college stay to ridiculous proportions.

[bradlys]

> The reality is that the they should be out of reach to poor or middle class students TODAY.

That varies so much by student and to bar a whole class of people out of these things is not going to improve their outcomes. While some students are not served with better employment opportunities by going to college and earning a degree - there are many others who are.

Outlawing things to a group of people isn't going to serve them better. It will mean that the entire middle class will be unable to educate into jobs. Educating them about the effort college requires to be successful once you leave would be better.

[skewart]

> Outlawing things to a group of people isn't going to serve them better. It will mean that the entire middle class will be unable to educate into jobs. Educating them about the effort college requires to be successful once you leave would be better.

Making it harder to get a student loan is hardly "outlawing" anyone from going to college. Schools would still give scholarships. Plus, tuition would almost certainly go down. Right now they can charge as much as they want because banks are will to lend whatever colleges charge. If all of a sudden people stopped buying their product when they raised the price too high then tuition would come back down to what it was only a few decades ago.

Even if fewer people ended up going to college it wouldn't limit opportunity. If anything it would likely make it easier to get ahead. Fewer jobs would require a college degree - there wouldn't be enough applicants who have one - and we'd likely see alternatives to college become more popular and widely respected, which would give high school grads more options for how to get started with a career.

[bradlys]

If you're saying that someone who is below a certain income cannot get a loan - how are they going to go to college? Pull-up them bootstraps and find some more money under the couch cushions? You do know that scholarships are not like a dime-a-dozen, right? It's not like every university waives tuition at middle class incomes.

If you want to limit the cost of college then doing it by putting caps on how much a university can charge could be a more straight forward option than hoping costs come down by limiting loans to those who can't afford the cash option. (e.g. If a university wants state funding then they need to cap their student costs) Even then - loans would still need to happen for people who can't afford much more than their basic housing expenses (if even that - think about kids who get kicked out at 18).

You're speaking in a lot of "if market forces behave the way we all think they should thanks to basic econ like supply and demand" but that's not how things always work in the real world.

Considering ~50% families don't have any retirement savings and don't have an emergency fund, do you really their kids are gonna be able to afford all the expense things associated with college? (Remember - these people just got out of high school! They have likely never had a job and have no money at all)

[skewart]

Do you think colleges wouldn't change if they were going to receive far far fewer applicants at their current sticker prices? I don't mean that to come across as snarky. I'm genuinely curious because your comment seems to be based on an assumption that colleges would not make changes to their operations or tuition if they suddenly had a hard time filling their freshman class.

[bradlys]

I think of it as being similar to healthcare. People need education to get jobs in the current economy. (In the same way they need healthcare to stay alive) You might make it so expensive they can't pay it back in any reasonable amount of time but if the choice is job vs no job - people gonna take it. If you remove the ability to even get an education (or healthcare) by saying you can only get it with cash then you're just screwing people over.

Regardless if job requirements change (they only will for a subset that no one cares about and no one is trying to get), you're going to screw people over. The lag time between no-loans and job-requirements dropping is going to be too long. There will be a lot of people who fall into the cracks and will be stuck with the lowest tier jobs because they couldn't afford a cash-only education until it was much less expensive.

Regardless of this - I feel like this is the wrong approach to debate lower costs vs no loans vs whatever-where-a-student-pays-in-the-end. I think 4 year college should be free (no tuition, books paid, stipend or special housing, etc.) given how the world works. I went to college for free due to CH 35 of the VA and it was really the only reason I was able to do it and fully commit to it. I have no problem with having a more educated populace - regardless of what they study. I did study something that came with very gainful employment but that wasn't obvious in the beginning of my studies. I think 4 year college would be less necessary if we had better education from the start - but we're never going to get there in this country.

[selectodude]

It depends entirely on the school. Harvard could pretty reasonably jack up their tuition well over $100,000/yr without any real resistance or fall in applications. We wouldn't get cheaper colleges, we'd merely watch as all the 2nd and 3rd tier schools shut down.

[jonkho]

Here is an idea: let’s have colleges themselves act as the guarantor for a student loan. This way the incentives are aligned; if the colleges are poor judge of a students talent (and admit too many low performers), or having teaching standards are too weak will stand to lose money when a student cannot secure a job and repay their loans.

[bonestormii_]

Wow. I really like this actually.

[jedberg]

Like I said in my initial comment, I don't agree that would be the outcome.

I think a lot of smaller college would fail, and the big colleges would keep their high prices, and only cater to the wealthy.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You only need to look at historical examples to know that cannot be the case.

Take for example, cars. That's how cars started. Look where we are today.

If tuition stays sky high, it will be because of regulatory requirements (and enabling subsidies) to stay sky high, not because theres no market for education for working class folk