[JimboOmega]

I've always wondered why we don't make student loans similar to other loans; IE, dischargeable in bankruptcy, and thus force lenders to evaluate credit risk when making them. That would mean less loans are issued and schools must cut costs and borrowers must pick more economically advantageous programs.

"We will pay for it, but it's a loan so not really" is a fallacy. If we decide that education is an all around good thing so we want to subsidize it, great, but let's just do that directly.

[lapcat]

> thus force lenders to evaluate credit risk when making them

The lender is the federal government for almost all student loans now.

[consteval]

Which might seem like a bad thing but remember why we got into this mess - private loans are often predatory! Private lenders understand the nature of young adults and absolutely used that to their advantage.

[gruez]

Then people would complain that disadvantaged students are being denied high education, because such students inevitably are going to have worse academic prospects than well off students, and therefore can't get student loans.

[declan_roberts]

Simple: look at the degree and future earnings, not the student.

[gruez]

So you expect private lenders to be on the hook for delinquencies and put them in charge of assessing credit risk, but then at the same time kneecap them by not allowing them to see any information about the lenders aside from what degree they're studying? Seems like a shitty regime where the smart middle class students (not rich students, because they don't need student loans) bears the burden of subsidizing all the bad students.

[sidewndr46]

it would simply result in no one lending