I agree that after taking out the loans, he should have done everything he could to get rid of them. He didn't. He was "above" taking a job, even for just a few years, to help him get rid of the loans. He also attended a private school, which was a bad decision if he couldn't afford it, both then and now. (Note: Some high-dollar private schools, like Harvard and Vanderbilt, will not allow you to take on debt. If you can't pay the tuition, they call it even as long as you keep your grades up and work in the cafeteria or something). He also doesn't say when he defaulted, which is really important since you can't get rid of student debt through bankruptcy anymore. Advising millenials to default is sentencing them to an entire lifetime of bad credit, not just 7 years of rebuilding. So yeah, I think he's an idiot, and he's doing more harm than good.

But he does have one thing in common with a lot of people getting themselves into trouble today: He was 17 when he first took out the money, and he was doing something that likely every adult had told him for his whole life: Go to college! Go to college! It's a good investment!

Flashforward to today, and kids still hear that. Is going to a $50k/year private school to study latin a good investment in your future? No, probably not. But the counterargument I hold is true: That it is a good investment for the public to enable that student to study Latin by creating a public university that is affordable. But nowadays, public universities are getting so expensive that even that is not a very good investment outside of STEM degrees because you will need to immediately start making payments of $1500/month.

I still find it hard to blame the students when they make decisions at 17 or 18 based on what the adults around them are telling them (go to college! Get any degree!). And judging by this thread, a lot of people are clueless as to the true costs of modern college. My financial advisor told me that at current rate of tuition inflation, I will need to have 150k saved to pay for for my child to go to college. At a public, in-state university. I have started saving early, and I can probably afford it, but most can't. And I find that reprehensible, considering it is supposed to be a public university.

Your public library is taxpayer-funded. Your statement is incoherent.

For what it's worth, I'm mainly referring to publicly funded schools. I agree that Harvard can charge whatever they want.

The cafeteria food is included in the "room and board" It's the "board" part. It's actually fairly cheap. $8700 for a place to stay and a guarantee you won't starve for a year.

No. I think education is a public good. Netflix is not. It really isn't that hard.

Ad hominem. I have zero debt and do quite well for myself. I could survive for a long time without changing a thing if I suddenly lost my job. I tend to think I'm fairly decent at it. I have been very poor in the past, though, and I have a semblance of empathy for people that are struggling. It is not nearly as easy as everyone makes it sound to pull yourself up.

Even removing these "luxuries", you still have to pay for room and board. That is not a luxury and costs more than the school itself. BOoks and room and board alone brings the four year cost to around $65k. That's if you live like a monk in your dorm room and eat exclusively cafeteria food. Realistically, we are talking $70-80k over 4 years.

WHere I live, in-state tuition is officially $6,664 for a resident. But then on the university's page, it also adds in 8700 for room/board, 1072 for books, and essentially 3800 for 'miscellaneous', because you might just occasionally want to go to a movie or drive a car. Granted, those are 'luxuries'. Still, the university recommends you have $20k/year. Which is $80k for a four year degree. Not $100k, but it is pushing towards it in a 'cheap' state. If you happen to have parents that will let you live at home and are nearby the school, you can do it for a lot cheaper. But not all people have that luxury. http://admissions.unm.edu/cost...

So tuition is not the whole story. Show me a UC website that says you realistically need less than $50k to go to school there....

I agree that this guy is a crappy messenger, and not exactly a poster-child for student debt reform. But it doesn't invalidate the point.

Public universities can still easily cost over $100k after 4 years. I am saying that we do a very poor job of subsidizing undergraduate education costs. And although graduate school costs are also quite high, I am really only talking about undergraduate costs. It should be as low-cost as possible. University of California was, in fact, free for in-state students for a long time.

Even if free, you still won't have any of your own money to spend and start a life. I doubt many people would choose a lifestyle of collecting 10 different undergraduate degrees as a career. Even so, I'd be fine with reducing or eliminating subsidies to students who already had a degree, if that makes you feel better. My point is that a basic undergraduate education should be available, and you don't need ten undergraduate degrees before you can claim you are finally "educated".

I agree with everything you said.

I honestly don't mean to create that dichotomy, and I applaud you on your efforts. In fact, I wish more people did things the way you are.

I just don't feel that a university education, for anything, should cost upwards of $100k for a PUBLIC school.

The author made some poor decisions, and went to a private school to boot. I have less sympathy for him than others, but I generally don't fault young people (who are prone to make mistakes) for going out and trying to get an education.

Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed.

But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.

I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.

I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.

I am not a socialist, or even very liberal, and I don't really follow how education equates to general wealth. I said that education should be available to all, not that everyone should be wealthy. Everyone should not and will not be wealthy. If you major in art history, be prepared to work at Starbucks. But there is absolutely no reason that someone should be shut out from learning about it because of money.

ALmost the only thing I do think the government ought to help enable is for anyone to get educated in whatever field they desire. It can only help lead to a educated populace which is more capable of critical thought.

Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money? THat is not what it is for! If so, art history would never have been an option for a major to begin with. It is to get an education. ANd that should be available to everyone for as cheaply as possible. If you get a major that is "useless", it shouldn't doom you to a fate of crushing debt for the next thirty years. Crappy job, maybe. But getting a high-paying gig is NOT why you go to school and learn philosophy.

Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...