What I know is Student loan is quite inefficient, people going to University of Phoenix with low job acceptance rate majors get the same/similar interest rate

What I know is Student loan is quite inefficient, people going to University of Phoenix with low job acceptance rate majors get the same/similar interest rate with people going to Stanford for Computer Science. One side is way more likely to pay back than the other. That side is the horse, while the other one is the burden to the portfolio. There are for-profit schools which spend 70% or more of their budget to solely marketing. I don't see they are producing good workforces. Long term value: driving the masses to correctly study things that have higher chances of concretely contributing to society on short - medium term. I think it's quite valuable. SoFi's way to survive is to collect high quality borrowers which risks are smaller than the average of the student loan portfolio. Let's say govt gave all 8% (idk the real numbers) for everyone, but there are good students/alumnis in it whose risk are calculated actually as 4%, SoFi would refinance the loan with 5%. 1% margin is for SoFi. Borrower is happy, SoFi is happy, student loan system gets a slap of reality in the long run & people would realize the inefficiency of the loaning system. In the next phase after they have gathered the good borrowers, SoFi needs to nurture them to ensure their productivity, while offering other finances if needed. This is still not materialized yet I think. But, acquiring good borrowers & continuously serving them is the holy grail of the business I think.