Lost me when argumentation structure turned out to be 1. It's expensive 2. 17 year olds think they don't have a choice 3. This student got a masters just to

Lost me when argumentation structure turned out to be 1. It's expensive 2. 17 year olds think they don't have a choice 3. This student got a masters just to be a social worker, bad choice 4. If you squint, you can say it is gov't enforced indentured servitude[1] 5. Actually, this is true: just look how the government is rushing to unsuspend suspended student loan payments (?!?!? it's been 3 years!) From there, it devolves further: it's never been possible to evaluate the credit of a 17 year old, there wasn't some switch off doing credit checks in 2004: I was there. It makes 0 sense that doing something that is already done would help anyone, and most damningly: it would cause a dystopia the author would take further issue with. Can you imagine how irate they'd be at a system where a 17 year old needs to commit to a career path in order to even get money to go to college in the first place? With enforcement mechanisms so the bank can force you back on the approved path if you start drifting into other interests? [1] I get, agree with, and and am sympathetic to the analogy...but it's not indentured servitude in any sense that's useful for making an argument. Let's say college was free. You could use the same argument to say _having a job to sustain yourself_ is indentured servitude.