- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 45
High-risk, in the sense that you are charging an individual to be responsible for a large sum of money, as opposed to a large population. I'm uncomfortably familiar with how hard it is to discharge student debt under the current system.
Neglecting private/OOS colleges and universities is intentional. In this scenario the quality education is provided via tax revenue in total, but only at state schools. Should the student choose an instate private, they would recieve the same tuition guarantee as an instate public and have to make up the difference in private sector loans. OOS schools they'd get a % of tuition and again make up the remainder in private loans. Achieves the goal of broadly available higher education to all income levels, and allows the student to take on as much/little debt as they want (and even lets the private sector pick up responsibility for approval thereof). The compact between society and individual is not one sided here: society picks up the tab, but in the setting of its choosing (aka lowest overall cost to it).
Large debts are assigned to individuals on a daily basis in the way of mortgages. The relative risk of a single mortgage is offset by bundling thousands of them together in the form of securities. As long as we don't have a subprime mortgage equivalent in terms of student loans, then there should be no issue. I do concede that this is not an impossibility as long as we keep giving govt loans to for-profit schools, but I'm not gonna go there.
(just to play a little devil's advocate here) I think your proposed system would work great for residents of states with robust public university systems (CA, WI, MN, NY), but seriously kneecap residents in other states. With that system you're going to shunt large numbers of people towards the public universities (clearly by design). It is unlikely that the public schools could absorb the influx of students. Thus there's a fair chance that we'll just end up with a tiered education system. Private schools are left exclusively to the upper class, while middle class students who might have gone private instead go public, thus displacing the first-generation college students from positions that they might otherwise have had at a public university.
As to loan forgiveness: it really depends on how it's done. Forgiveness for paying the minimum income based repayment for 10 years? Fantastic scam if you can work it, terrible idea in practice. I think you hit the nail on the head though: All the examples you gave of "deserving" loan forgiveness repaid their debt in service. I honestly wouldn't care to repay the loan debt of the ***** that graduated with a theater major if they earned it through by working for a charity, serving the under served etc.
^^This. As annoyed as I am at people who actually graduate with ridiculous unemployable majors, the "lazy college grad" is pretty much a myth. Regardless of if a person's "interpersonal studies" degree makes in sense, they at least had to put forth a modicum effort and be able to deal with people long enough to graduate. Which sets them far enough apart from the rest of the workforce as to at least maintain gainful employment more often than not. Even if they end up as the manager of a corner gas station, they are at least a manager and will value their credit enough to prioritize repayment.
Maybe the answer to your concerns could be that loan forgiveness is only open to certain majors/degrees? And even if they don't have one of those majors, if an individual utilizes their degree in an underserved area for 10-15yrs, that's a huge commitment, and in those circumstances, if you're willing to give up that much of your life and lost earning potential, I think you've earned debt forgiveness. My guess is that if that's where the bar is set, most educated college grads will realize that they're better off gunning for a higher salaried job and paying off the debt on their own.