3 ms·

That's quite a reach. How is taking a small percentage of your income and being debt free somehow more of a burden than graduating with 100k in debt that canno

• ggm 7y ago
  yes it is a reach. But the quality for me, is that student debt in the state is objectively better because its (a) equalised nationally and (b) subject to administrative review automatically. student debt in the college funds is a recipe for lack of oversight, arbitrary process, contract-law, and very probably abuse by rich families (e.g. the get into uni tricks they play alread: here in Australia a prime ministers daughter miraculously was awarded a $60,000 "grant" from the college for her study...) The problem is the debt? yes. The fix is not to socialize the debt into a contract with the institution. Thats just "market will fix" behaviour. I think the problem is "why are we allowing tertiary education to become this expensive in the first place" Debt bondage is actually a thing. It has a long history in trade unionism, and in existing work conditions in India. Of course Stanford has no intention of being the serf-lord, but if the debt cycle is now bound to your choice of study, Stanford is saying "no, I've decided you will be a dental hygenist at 3% refund, if you insist on being an M.D. its going to be 5%" and before you know it, discretionary spending has vanished. Working-poor bad-risk people will be driven to expedient outcomes, and excluded from higher life outcomes because they are not fundable. Thats fair? No. Equality of access is actually important.