[marcinzm]

It's not about being attractive, it's about ex-students not declaring bankruptcy because they think it won't remove their lambda school loans. Thus lambda school keeps getting money from them instead of getting nothing after they decide to declare bankruptcy. That clause was, in my eyes, clearly designed to discourage students from exercising their ability to clear debts via bankruptcy.

[nrmitchi]

I've seen this point made elsewhere too, but I'm not sure I understand it.

The ISAs are, as far as I know, capped at 30k, and only apply if you're making 50k/yr. I can't imagine a situation where someone's decision of whether or not to declare bankrupcy comes down to the 30k-max ISA; either it's the majority of your debt, and you're making >50k/yr, or it's a small amount relative to your other debt, in which case you should proceed anyways.

[pseudalopex]

Or you're making less but think you could make more eventually.

[narwally]

Yep, it's about "Human Capital: The Last Unoptimized Asset Class" <- the title of an actual internal memo they wrote.

[ghufran_syed]

what’s wrong with that? is it better that people can’t develop their human capital, or is it better if people have a variety of ways to finance education to develop their human capital? The status quo is government student loans to finance education, which are generally NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy, AND must still be paid even if if you didn’t graduate, or get a good job afterwards? Isn’t the income-share agreement at least “less bad”? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how better to address the problem? If the government was involved, I personally think the best way would be a graduate tax of x%