Cancel all student debt? No.

[Anselm]

Some people are in a situation where the debt cannot be repaid.  Their lives are essentially ruined before age 30.  These are the good people who listened to their elders who all told them to go to school, the best one possible.  I voted yes, depending on income.  Short of total cancellation, I propose having the government assume all of these private loans.  Pay it back based on your income.  Ban hiring discrimination based on loan defaults  (i.e. the state of South Carolina).   Remove it from credit reports. 

In my lifetime the US government has bailed out Mexico, South Korea, Chrysler, GM and the too big to fail banks.   In addition there are individual bailouts to farmers and McMansion dwellers.  We can help at least those in the worst debt situations.  I am speaking as someone who tightened my belt to pay it all back.   

[Kron3007]

Simplifying things would help. Right now the people who have to jump through the most hoops are precisely the same people who are likely to have the least access to information on how all of these things work. However, if you think about the whole model, it isn't how other forms of public schooling work. Property taxes are a bad way to pay for schools for all kinds of reasons, but the basic idea is that schooling is something that people should pay for regardless of whether they have kids or not.

The difference with public school is that it's intended to be more or less uniform and universal; i.e. it is the amount of education needed by any member of the society. Post-secondary education, on the other hand, is highly individualized based on the goals of each person. Even the choice about whether someone needs more formal education is individual. Consequently, the benefit of post-secondary education is much more to the individual, whereas the public school education benefits society by producing an educated populace.

As an alternative, if the taxpayers are going to fund everyone's post-secondary education, then the number of spaces available in each program should be determined by what society needs. That would have some sort of economic justification, rather than just allowing the proliferation of "Social Transformation of Basketweaving Theory" programs if any program can get funding as long as they can rope in recruit students.

The reality is that there are many countries that have "free" post secondary education.  It definitely can be done.  It is really a matter of priorities.  If you dont think a population with higher rates of post secondary education would benefit society, that is your opinion, but many believe that it would be worth the investment.

Most of my grandparents did not complete high school, as educational expectations were much different then.  I imagine there was a time when "free" high school would have been seen in a similar light, but now in most developed countries that is pretty much a given.  I see this as a good step. 

[mahagonny]

• students need skin in the game.  While I do not believe anyone should be burdened with a $100,000 debt for an undergraduate degree, $10k or $20k is a reasonable debt burden for a student to shoulder.  Most students would not hesitate to borrow $20k, $30k, or $40k for a new car... knowing full well that five or six years later that car will be history and they will have moved on to another vehicle.  Yet many balk at the idea of having a similar burden for something far more valuable and enduring: an education.

They don't balk at the prospect of paying for a car because no one would listen. No candidates are discussing a government program that entitles you to a car because you won't be able to learn or work without one. The expenses of car, housing, health care, food might make me more open to the 'free college' idea, not less. At the same time though I theorize that if paying for college remains as difficult as it is and debts continue not being paid in full, then fewer will attend, colleges will continue to close, and eventually the number of colleges we have will fit the number of people who go to college, and stay relatively full. And in the process, they won't have to compete as hard to attract students, which saves money, savings that could be shared with tuition and fee payers. Bitter medicine, sure. But what else will work? The agony we hear about on these fora with college closings is mostly the prospect of students needing to finish their education somehow, with money and time wasted, non-transferring credits and other pains, and professors losing their livelihood. But the impact society long term is not that. It's something different.

• when your own money (debt) is on the line you take school more seriously.

When you can't get other people to pay for your poor ability to contain costs, such as those incurred by

(1) neglecting the upkeep of your campus buildings until water leaks in everywhere and it finally is addressed, at much greater cost than it would have been if it had been maintained over the years,
(2) giving tenure to a guy who teaches something that everyone wants to learn right now, but will not in ten to fifteen years, yet you won't have the option of converting him back to part time, as a business would,
(3) athletic programs that lose money consistently but are considered necessary to attract students

...then you learn to manage your costs. Why are students the only ones who need to learn responsibility? 'Free college for students' really means more taxpayer money for colleges. I would like to know why they deserve it before signing on for 'free college'.

[AJ_Katz]

Interesting that no one has brought up the very difficult prospect of bankruptcy code for student loans.  I find it appalling that our current code treats student loans essentially the same as non-dischargeable debt... such as like child support and criminal fines, making it virtually impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy (something like less than 0.04% of people declaring bankruptcy with student loans actually receive full or partial discharge).  The whole model of secondary education and loan support has changed radically even in the last 20 years; asking our students to take on substantially greater debt for education than ever before.  Yet, very little is done in terms of educating students to be able to make these kinds of decisions with long-term consequences that educational debt requires.  Indeed, both the tax code and our educational system's betrayal of the students going into this system with little sympathy for their future job prospects is, personally, what I see to be the largest flaw.  Of course, without such high costs on the individual for their education (think pre-1980's), tax code and long-term thinking are arguably negligible and function to dissuade criminals.  But with the change of our system (increasing costs and loan burden), I fear each of us is giving biased advice to students who face a radically different system and future than what most of us faced at the same age.  Let's not lose sight of that...  for example, how much did you pay for tuition compared to someone coming through the same program today?  Something to think about.

[pigou]

The reality is that there are many countries that have "free" post secondary education.  It definitely can be done.  It is really a matter of priorities.  If you dont think a population with higher rates of post secondary education would benefit society, that is your opinion, but many believe that it would be worth the investment.

Sure, but admissions requirements are much higher. Forget remedial education, forget anything below the level of a flagship state university. Next, funding (via available slots) differs greatly by major and many fields of study available in the US simply aren't offered at all.

Just look at who the students in the US with the most student debt are. They didn't go to top private schools. They didn't go to flagship state universities. They went to underfunded local schools with poor outcomes and placements or for-profit universities (basically the same). They also didn't pick a major in computer science or biology -- no, they picked majors that are were a priori all but guaranteed to have zero economic return.

There is no world in which taxpayer funds will go toward a theater degree at a middle of nowhere community college with a 90% acceptance rate. Doubly not so if that funding comes with a stipend to defray living costs.

[pigou]

Interesting that no one has brought up the very difficult prospect of bankruptcy code for student loans.  I find it appalling that our current code treats student loans essentially the same as non-dischargeable debt...

Because if the debt were dischargeable, there's one thing every student would do the day after taking out their last loan: file for bankruptcy. The hit to their credit score isn't even remotely a deterrent when you're tens of thousands of dollars in debt and aren't planning to buy a house in the next 10 years anyway. No lender would be dumb enough to make a loan under these conditions with no collateral, meaning the only students who could get student loans would be the ones who have wealthy parents co-signing.

[Hibush]

The reality is that there are many countries that have "free" post secondary education.  It definitely can be done.  It is really a matter of priorities.  If you dont think a population with higher rates of post secondary education would benefit society, that is your opinion, but many believe that it would be worth the investment.

Sure, but admissions requirements are much higher. Forget remedial education, forget anything below the level of a flagship state university. Next, funding (via available slots) differs greatly by major and many fields of study available in the US simply aren't offered at all.

Just look at who the students in the US with the most student debt are. They didn't go to top private schools. They didn't go to flagship state universities. They went to underfunded local schools with poor outcomes and placements or for-profit universities (basically the same). They also didn't pick a major in computer science or biology -- no, they picked majors that are were a priori all but guaranteed to have zero economic return.

There is no world in which taxpayer funds will go toward a theater degree at a middle of nowhere community college with a 90% acceptance rate. Doubly not so if that funding comes with a stipend to defray living costs.

Higher ed becomes more top-down driven. The relevant leadership determines that the country needs a cohort of 2000 econ majors each year, then that his how many econ slots there are. If 20,000 kids want to be econ majors, then the competition will be tough.

I have trouble picturing how that process would work in a US state when determining university funding.

[Kron3007]

The reality is that there are many countries that have "free" post secondary education.  It definitely can be done.  It is really a matter of priorities.  If you dont think a population with higher rates of post secondary education would benefit society, that is your opinion, but many believe that it would be worth the investment.

Sure, but admissions requirements are much higher. Forget remedial education, forget anything below the level of a flagship state university. Next, funding (via available slots) differs greatly by major and many fields of study available in the US simply aren't offered at all.

Just look at who the students in the US with the most student debt are. They didn't go to top private schools. They didn't go to flagship state universities. They went to underfunded local schools with poor outcomes and placements or for-profit universities (basically the same). They also didn't pick a major in computer science or biology -- no, they picked majors that are were a priori all but guaranteed to have zero economic return.

There is no world in which taxpayer funds will go toward a theater degree at a middle of nowhere community college with a 90% acceptance rate. Doubly not so if that funding comes with a stipend to defray living costs.

I'm not saying that this model is compatable with the existing US secondary school structure.  It would require a significant overhaul on many levels.

I am in Canada, but spent some time in the US.  What struck me as odd throughout your education system is the prevelence of private schools.  I think this would make free higher education much more difficult to implement, so it would likely require a lot of change.  In Canada, where private schools are rare at all levels, it would be pretty straight forward.

I recent spoke to a student graduating from Germany, where university is almost free.  While their system is not perfect, he seemed pretty content with his education and recognized the value of graduating without significant debt.

[downer]

In Germany a smaller proportion of students get tertiary education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment

I am struck that in Norway and Sweden, where I believe tertiary education is also basically free, the numbers of students are very high.

How come Russia sends 58% of people to university? Can that be right? Who pays?

[tuxthepenguin]

Interesting that no one has brought up the very difficult prospect of bankruptcy code for student loans.  I find it appalling that our current code treats student loans essentially the same as non-dischargeable debt...

Because if the debt were dischargeable, there's one thing every student would do the day after taking out their last loan: file for bankruptcy. The hit to their credit score isn't even remotely a deterrent when you're tens of thousands of dollars in debt and aren't planning to buy a house in the next 10 years anyway. No lender would be dumb enough to make a loan under these conditions with no collateral, meaning the only students who could get student loans would be the ones who have wealthy parents co-signing.

It's not at all that easy to file for bankruptcy. For one thing, you're saying "every student". Are you claiming there's not a single student graduating from college with a job? Moreover, the conditions to file for bankruptcy are set as part of bankruptcy law, so the blanket policy that you can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy is one of many possible policies.

[polly_mer]

In Germany a smaller proportion of students get tertiary education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment

I am struck that in Norway and Sweden, where I believe tertiary education is also basically free, the numbers of students are very high.

How come Russia sends 58% of people to university? Can that be right? Who pays?

One way to have "cheap" tertiary education is to severely limit what is offered as majors, put almost all the burden on the student, and otherwise leverage one-size-fits-all mass education.  One professor can speak for an hour three times per week to a lecture hall that holds 500+ people with the only graded assessment being a final exam with numerical or other "there is only one right answer" items such that a single sheet contains all the answers for one student and someone can grade (or have auto graded) each submission in under a minute.

Have no student housing, no tutoring, and really not much of anything other than a library, an office to write admission letters, and an office to record grades and write the dismissal letters for failing.  In short, the university is much more like the ones of centuries ago where the assumption is everyone on campus has chosen to spend a few years learning something as a member of a learning community and the professor job is to be the expert setting out a reasonable way for those who find their personal sweet spot between ability and effort to demonstrate progress.  A professor may also be a teacher and even mentor, but the primary job is curator of human knowledge in a given area, not propping up students during a forced march.

Have only a handful of these institutions in the country so that there's almost no duplication of effort.  For example, there is one undergraduate physics program in the country so that all N000 people in the physics-cohort-entering-fall-2019 take THE one section of Physics 101 in the country.  No TAs, no tutoring, no effort to keep students on track with graded weekly reading quizzes/problem sets/lab reports, just doing the work on one's own, asking questions as needed, and a big ol' final at the end.

A key mindset is that student failure is absolutely an option with only a small percentage of those who start university finishing at all.  One of my South American colleagues thought 10% of a given cohort finishing was quite reasonable and was very concerned about American rigor upon learning the US national graduation rate is more than 50% and we're trying to raise it, even as a larger percentage of high school graduates test as not college ready and yet enroll in university anyway.

Unlike others, I don't care what people major in if we go to a free-to-students system.  However, I would ratchet up requirements for entry that include being able to perform at a solid high school level, which includes being ready to take calculus even if one never does and having demonstrated the basics of scientific inquiry, statistics, and several other areas that prepare one to be a good citizen (and meets the other claims for why a liberal arts education in college is important).  We need the handful of X studies majors to know how to interpret data so they can ask those types of critical thinking questions as well as whatever else they are learning specific to the field. 

Considering how important algorithmic thinking is in the modern US for professional jobs, I'd also enforce being computer proficient on the programming side (for this purpose, being a power-user in Excel counts) because, much like the claims made for critical thinking and close reading, while an individual might end up in a job where using a computer isn't a thing, an increasing percentage of professional jobs require those who can learn quickly in areas related to using a computer.  People don't necessarily need a CS class, but they do need algorithmic thinking including how to troubleshoot using trial-and-error.

I am also curious about the assertion that most people file 1040-EZ so extra bureaucracy doesn't have to be that much extra.  I filed the 1040-EZ form once in my life for the year I was 18.  After that, I filed 1040-A for a year or two.  By my early twenties, my husband and I were filing the long form every year.  We didn't make a lot of money (about half the limit to file the 1040-EZ for years), but we had qualifying conditions that meant we should (and then later must) file the long form and that was well before we owned property in multiple states and had earned income in multiple states.

[pigou]

I am in Canada, but spent some time in the US.  What struck me as odd throughout your education system is the prevelence of private schools.  I think this would make free higher education much more difficult to implement, so it would likely require a lot of change.  In Canada, where private schools are rare at all levels, it would be pretty straight forward.

The real oddity in the US system is that the sticker price isn't actually what the vast majority of students pay. I just looked at McGill, which charges in-state students $2,400, out-of-state students $7,400, and international students $29,200. It looks like students actually pay that.

On the other hand, my university charges about $45,000 per year -- but the average tuition is $15,000. In fact, it's pretty bimodal: there are a lot of students who pay $0, a lot of students who pay $45,000, and some at the lower end of that range. Since I mentioned the University of Michigan: their in-state tuition is $14,000, their out-of-state tuition is $45,000... but the average cost after aid is also $15,000. I suspect it's equally bimodal.

So for a whole lot of students, attending a US university is actually much cheaper (i.e. free) than going to university in Canada. It's just not obvious at the time when you apply... which, it turns out, is not a hard problem to fix. Given the data admissions/recruitment offices have access to, they could send you an individualized tuition/scholarship offer long before the student applies.

I recent spoke to a student graduating from Germany, where university is almost free.  While their system is not perfect, he seemed pretty content with his education and recognized the value of graduating without significant debt.

The problem with looking at graduates is that there's a huge selection effect: you don't hear from all the students who didn't get to go to university. But almost more importantly, they really have no comparison to life as a US student. Last time I was visiting a (top ranked) European university, I tried to get them to order me a book... and it came with a $20 fee (also charged to their own students!) and 1-2 week delivery time. My library can get most books within 24 hours and can send me a PDF of a chapter within a day or two, all at no charge.

We have statistics consulting, a writing center, daily seminars (with food!), student events... it's not just "more of the same," but qualitatively different offerings. A friend of mine, in bio research, did her PhD in Germany and said she didn't have access to the machines commonly used in pharma that the undergrads at her US university get to play with: so the German graduates are 5-10 years behind on technology when they graduate. And if I look at the tech in a UK classroom, I'm lucky if the projector doesn't die on me... even simple things like having a screen in front of you (so you can look at your audience AND the slides) are non-existent.

I am also curious about the assertion that most people file 1040-EZ so extra bureaucracy doesn't have to be that much extra.  I filed the 1040-EZ form once in my life for the year I was 18.  After that, I filed 1040-A for a year or two.  By my early twenties, my husband and I were filing the long form every year.  We didn't make a lot of money (about half the limit to file the 1040-EZ for years), but we had qualifying conditions that meant we should (and then later must) file the long form and that was well before we owned property in multiple states and had earned income in multiple states.

Oops, I meant 1040-A, which is also two pages. 1040-EZ and 1040-A jointly make up about 50% of tax returns filed, but obviously a larger share among students who qualify for financial aid.

The form captures people who have a household income below $100k, didn't have any capital gains, didn't have self-employed income, and don't itemize their deductions. That's a pretty large part of the population.

It's not at all that easy to file for bankruptcy. For one thing, you're saying "every student". Are you claiming there's not a single student graduating from college with a job? Moreover, the conditions to file for bankruptcy are set as part of bankruptcy law, so the blanket policy that you can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy is one of many possible policies.

You'd file for bankruptcy in your last semester, at which point you still have no income and no assets, but a lot of debt. At that point, you'd almost surely qualify under Chapter 7. I'm not sure how you'd restructure Chapter 7 to solve this issue without introducing new problems. Moreover, it'd change incentives such that even wealthy parents wouldn't pay for their kids' tuition, because it'd be easier to discharge the debt and co-sign their future loans/mortgages.

I guess you could make it non-dischargeable only for 10 years, but at some point, you're running up against the hole that income-based repayment plans are intended to close. That is, you can already discharge debt after some time with no hit to your credit score.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

In Germany a smaller proportion of students get tertiary education.
How come Russia sends 58% of people to university? Can that be right? Who pays?

I happen to have exposure to German, Russian, and North American tertiary education systems.

German system involves very early (pre-teen) separation of students into different streams. Those destined for university receive much more rigorous secondary education. So, universities receive generally well prepared and reasonably motivated students.  Further filtering occurs during exams: options to retake courses are generally very limited, if existent at all. Adopting such system in North America would require complete restructuring of the secondary education (unless one wants a permanently stratified society)

Russian numbers are produced by a number of unique circumstances (which nobody should desire to replicate):
1) Demographic collapse during transition to market economy greatly reduced number of prospective students (Vermont one is a gentle slide by comparison). However, the government generally kept number of publicly-funded university spots (it was too politically dangerous to cut them).
2) Same transition to market economy destroyed jobs for millions of engineers making technical careers not attractive (to say the least). As a result, in order to survive, numerous formely highly-specialized technical colleges started offering cheap and low-quality degrees in marketing, law and such. It is not unlike SLAC offering a business program, but with "small [enter sub-field name] engineering college" instead of SLAC.
3) Conscription motivates young males to enroll and keep being enrolled. Though, the recent reduction in mandatory military service length somehow blunted this incentive.

[scamp]

We have statistics consulting, a writing center, daily seminars (with food!), student events... it's not just "more of the same," but qualitatively different offerings. A friend of mine, in bio research, did her PhD in Germany and said she didn't have access to the machines commonly used in pharma that the undergrads at her US university get to play with: so the German graduates are 5-10 years behind on technology when they graduate. And if I look at the tech in a UK classroom, I'm lucky if the projector doesn't die on me... even simple things like having a screen in front of you (so you can look at your audience AND the slides) are non-existent.

When was the last time you were in a UK classroom? This was not my experience at all (and we had statistics consulting, a writing center, etc.) But the current state of UK academics is a red herring in this discussion as university is most definitely not free there.

[Kron3007]

I am in Canada, but spent some time in the US.  What struck me as odd throughout your education system is the prevelence of private schools.  I think this would make free higher education much more difficult to implement, so it would likely require a lot of change.  In Canada, where private schools are rare at all levels, it would be pretty straight forward.

The real oddity in the US system is that the sticker price isn't actually what the vast majority of students pay. I just looked at McGill, which charges in-state students $2,400, out-of-state students $7,400, and international students $29,200. It looks like students actually pay that.

On the other hand, my university charges about $45,000 per year -- but the average tuition is $15,000. In fact, it's pretty bimodal: there are a lot of students who pay $0, a lot of students who pay $45,000, and some at the lower end of that range. Since I mentioned the University of Michigan: their in-state tuition is $14,000, their out-of-state tuition is $45,000... but the average cost after aid is also $15,000. I suspect it's equally bimodal.

So for a whole lot of students, attending a US university is actually much cheaper (i.e. free) than going to university in Canada. It's just not obvious at the time when you apply... which, it turns out, is not a hard problem to fix. Given the data admissions/recruitment offices have access to, they could send you an individualized tuition/scholarship offer long before the student applies.

I recent spoke to a student graduating from Germany, where university is almost free.  While their system is not perfect, he seemed pretty content with his education and recognized the value of graduating without significant debt.

The problem with looking at graduates is that there's a huge selection effect: you don't hear from all the students who didn't get to go to university. But almost more importantly, they really have no comparison to life as a US student. Last time I was visiting a (top ranked) European university, I tried to get them to order me a book... and it came with a $20 fee (also charged to their own students!) and 1-2 week delivery time. My library can get most books within 24 hours and can send me a PDF of a chapter within a day or two, all at no charge.

We have statistics consulting, a writing center, daily seminars (with food!), student events... it's not just "more of the same," but qualitatively different offerings. A friend of mine, in bio research, did her PhD in Germany and said she didn't have access to the machines commonly used in pharma that the undergrads at her US university get to play with: so the German graduates are 5-10 years behind on technology when they graduate. And if I look at the tech in a UK classroom, I'm lucky if the projector doesn't die on me... even simple things like having a screen in front of you (so you can look at your audience AND the slides) are non-existent.

I am also curious about the assertion that most people file 1040-EZ so extra bureaucracy doesn't have to be that much extra.  I filed the 1040-EZ form once in my life for the year I was 18.  After that, I filed 1040-A for a year or two.  By my early twenties, my husband and I were filing the long form every year.  We didn't make a lot of money (about half the limit to file the 1040-EZ for years), but we had qualifying conditions that meant we should (and then later must) file the long form and that was well before we owned property in multiple states and had earned income in multiple states.

Oops, I meant 1040-A, which is also two pages. 1040-EZ and 1040-A jointly make up about 50% of tax returns filed, but obviously a larger share among students who qualify for financial aid.

The form captures people who have a household income below $100k, didn't have any capital gains, didn't have self-employed income, and don't itemize their deductions. That's a pretty large part of the population.

It's not at all that easy to file for bankruptcy. For one thing, you're saying "every student". Are you claiming there's not a single student graduating from college with a job? Moreover, the conditions to file for bankruptcy are set as part of bankruptcy law, so the blanket policy that you can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy is one of many possible policies.

You'd file for bankruptcy in your last semester, at which point you still have no income and no assets, but a lot of debt. At that point, you'd almost surely qualify under Chapter 7. I'm not sure how you'd restructure Chapter 7 to solve this issue without introducing new problems. Moreover, it'd change incentives such that even wealthy parents wouldn't pay for their kids' tuition, because it'd be easier to discharge the debt and co-sign their future loans/mortgages.

I guess you could make it non-dischargeable only for 10 years, but at some point, you're running up against the hole that income-based repayment plans are intended to close. That is, you can already discharge debt after some time with no hit to your credit score.

You mention a German PhD student not having access to specific equipment, but I suspect this is also true in some American universities.  Germany also has high end research centres that rival many top US universities (ie. Max Planck institutes) where students have great access to resources.  Regardless, I wasn't saying that the German system was perfect (in fact I said it wasn't), just that it is possible to have a reasonably good education system that is more or less free to the student.

As for Germany having a lower % of students going to university, perhaps that is a good thing.  I have also heard that they are very efficient at other modes of training, where we are in short supply in the trades etc.  I dont know how accurate that is, but they are often held up as a good model for this.