> Enough of the extra income is weighted towards the beginning... No banks involved.... Whether it's banks or other taxpayers or recipients of other entitlemen

> Enough of the extra income is weighted towards the beginning... No banks involved.... Whether it's banks or other taxpayers or recipients of other entitlement programs is, I guess, a bit of a red herring wrt the point I was trying to make. The question is about the knock-on effects of squeezing an entire generation for some chunk of what they're worth before they even enter the job market. Again, I think the K-12 analogy is the best way of communicating the point I'm trying to make. Why don't we also charge high school students $10K @ 4% instead of paying for high school through taxes? Well, because that would be a huge net negative for society. > Also most stem phds work as researchers and teachers--they generally aren't paying tuition. I have a stem phd :). I was referring to the huge opportunity cost re: delayed earnings. US students opting out of phds because they have huge student debt to service is a real thing. This is true even when the phd would undoubtedly increase lifetime earnings (e.g., students from no-name schools turning down CMU/MIT/Berkeley/Standford phd acceptance letters for mid five figure salaries).