On the note of 1 and 4. I have met two different people (different situations) who funded their company through student loans and then failed and defaulted. I h

On the note of 1 and 4. I have met two different people (different situations) who funded their company through student loans and then failed and defaulted. I have met several people who would start companies but are buried in student debt, so instead of using their money to start a company, got a degree they were not sure of, and then worked at a company instead of starting one to pay the debt back. So it is really an 8-year path, four of which in school, and four of which at a start-up making their tuition back in order to then pay it off, save up and start a company. Seems like if you just started the company, you would be financially in a similar position and eight years ahead. That being said if you fail and need a job, you no longer have the insurance of the degree. But could it be possible that the company you started gave you more relevant skills, not only in general, but to your employer too? That is the question. And if the answer is that the startup came even close to the degree, saving all that time seems like a good deal. I am assuming college is entirely rational, which it is not and it offers other things, but for certain people it is. This policy seems nice in theory, but is probably pandering in process. Here in Canada, the government has become the carrot and stick mechanism for businesses, driving increasing dependence. First you get regulations that make it harder to do business, but then the government pays for you to fund the project(s) to meet the regulations. Many companies here basically only exist because all change/innovation is funded by the government, out of guilt for imposing such restrictive regulation in the first place. It is strange, but a different issue. I suspect Hillary would prefer this model for USA.