That would be the end of poor people going to college in this country, at least under the current legislative regime. The only reason anyone loans money to poor people to go to college right now is because they know the recipients can't get out from under the loans. A no-collateral loan to someone with few assets or prospects just wouldn't happen if that provision in the law didn't exist. Or the interest rate would be enormous. But if the interest rate were high then defaults would be high. So you'd probably have some sort of death spiral. No, I doubt such lending would happen any more.
Now, the legislative regime could change. But it would have to change quite a bit to get significant increases in funding for college. Or maybe it's better if poor people just don't go to college? That's questionable at best.
I think this problem is a lot harder than people on this thread are making it out to be. Making student loan debt bankruptcy proof is within the Overton window in this country. I guess not making it bankruptcy-proof with no other changes is also within that window. Free or reduced price college tuition for the vast swathes of people who need it to attend is just outside, so it's definitely a foreseeable outcome, but if we don't get there in the next two decades that wouldn't surprise me either.
That's an option, but not one that most Americans would support today, and probably not tomorrow either. At least not after you tell them what it would mean for taxes. All the pithy internet retorts to the contrary won't change this fact.
I worry that you don't understand how hard it is to raise taxes in the States. It hasn't been done in a substantial way for close to half a century. The trend has been rather the opposite.
The US spends considerably more on K-12 than the rest of the developed world. It isn't obvious to me that this allows you to avoid the problem of unreasonable cost.
> That would be the end of poor people going to college in this country, at least under the current legislative regime.
Or alternatively, end of the current university system. One thing that always confused me when looking at US and UK unis (both had prices rise a lot) and my home uni is how much extra stuff is added. I went there for technical education, and that's pretty much all my first University provided, and it was really cheap. It didn't have sports teams/events, on-campus clubs/entertainment, student union bars, fancy areas. It used soviet-era-style big slab buildings, and provided reasonable education. Yes, going to a UK uni was nicer. It also cost me ~200x more, to support all the extra things.
People who just want the degree should be able to get just that without the lifelong debt.
Sports teams are a money-maker for D1 (top-tier sports-wise) American universities. Both in an absolute sense, and also in terms of encouraging donations from alumni. The other things you mentioned are probably not a significant fraction of the costs of university. Rather, I'd guess that the main costs are salaries and building. Universities, especially private ones, are notorious for turning over relatively young buildings to build newer and shinier ones. I don't donate to my alma mater [1] precisely because I suspect that the vast majority of any donation will be spent on constructing new buildings that are not needed to satisfy the core educational mission that universities ought to embrace. I'd honestly rather donate it to the nearest state school.
Now, the legislative regime could change. But it would have to change quite a bit to get significant increases in funding for college. Or maybe it's better if poor people just don't go to college? That's questionable at best.
I think this problem is a lot harder than people on this thread are making it out to be. Making student loan debt bankruptcy proof is within the Overton window in this country. I guess not making it bankruptcy-proof with no other changes is also within that window. Free or reduced price college tuition for the vast swathes of people who need it to attend is just outside, so it's definitely a foreseeable outcome, but if we don't get there in the next two decades that wouldn't surprise me either.
reply