[awjr]

Also the debt cannot be gotten rid of by declaring yourself bankrupt. It is a 'federal' debt.

Think the UK has sort of got this right. Your tuition fees are a debt (at very low interest rates) that you never have to pay off unless you start earning significant amounts of money. It's repaid as a percentage of your salary above a certain income level.

[mattmanser]

Hmm, "right" is a pretty contentious point here still given the still recent betrayal of the Lib Dems.

And 20 years ago it used to be completely free and you'd even be given money to go in the form of grants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_in_the_United_King...

[awjr]

Not sure a political party can be relied on to do the right thing. It's the nature of politics.

20 years ago I could buy a house for a decent price. I started Uni in 1990 and that was the first year student loans were introduced. So you'd have to have graduated in 1989 (25 years ago) to not have been impacted by student loans.

What has changed is that the cost of going to University has now been transferred correctly to the student. I see nothing wrong in somebody choosing to go to University and I know many people of my era that just went to University because that is what you did. Now people try and evaluate if going to University is the correct career choice.

The important thing to remember is that this 'debt' is not an issue. You have to be financially 'successful' to even start to need to pay it off and the interest rate is currently at 1.5% (Commercial rates are around 6-9%) and is written off after 25 years, unlike the US student debt which is at commercial rates and you cannot escape.

[mattmanser]

I definitely don't agree with "Correctly"?

It's a social investment in the future of the country, there's nothing objectively correct that at some arbitrary point in your education you suddenly need to pay. I wonder when you want to start having school children accrue their loans for primary/secondary school?

Why is part of your education free and part of it not? And perhaps the most important part that you arguably desperately need if you want to access a middle class job?

Isn't that massively elitist and a class discriminator? That when you do finally get that job you have to pay a load of money back that your richer peers just put in a saving account and earned some free money?

And if that's what's changed why do so many more people go to university now than previously?

Everything you've just said makes absolutely no sense from a different perspective.

[awjr]

The world is unfair and some people are born into money and many many more are not. The government has taken the decision to provide free education up to a specific level. Should you wish to pursue a degree, the government provides a debt mechanism to do this.

The debt is non-repayable until you have pretty much become financially successful and is written off after 25 years. I really don't see this as a major issue. There is nothing financially stopping you going to University.

I'd actually argue that the government debt should also cover residential accommodation and minimum living costs.

[philosophus]

It isn't really "completely free" if it's coming out of tax revenue, is it? Paid for by taxation would be the correct way to describe that situation, it seems.