[pdonis]

But having interest accrue was part of the original agreement she made. The fact that she has exploited a loophole in the system to avoid paying that interest does not make it right. If nobody paid interest on loans, there would be no loans, and she would not have been able to get one to pay for her education.

[ars]

I think she feels that the agreement was two ways: She would pay interested, but in return she would get a job.

I'm not entirely convinced on the ethics, but there is something to the argument.

[rakoo]

No one promised her a job (as in, no actual employer told her "I've got that job here, as soon as you show me your diploma you come and work for us"), but she did promise to pay the loans.

Ok, it's easy for me (or for any non-US) to look down on her because of the ridiculous loans that go with US education, but she still is in the wrong to me.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>No one promised her a job (as in, no actual employer told her "I've got that job here, as soon as you show me your diploma you come and work for us"),

Actually, high schools in the US often hold events where employers and college recruiters show up and give motivational talks where they do precisely that. No contracts are ever signed of course, but young minds somehow wind up with the impression that the way to achieve success in life is to get a college degree at practically any cost.

People in better circumstances can squeal all they want to about "responsibility" but, if you are a businessman whose profit is predicated upon convincing 18 yr-olds to mortgage their lives for a chance at the job-lottery don't expect a lot of sympathy from me when it all goes south. The failure of this student-loan scheme shouldn't surprise any one. It is dependent upon having a supply of well-paying jobs waiting for graduates. If the jobs aren't there, the students won't get (gainful) employment, and without gainful employment, what method do you propose that students repay their loans?