I mean, I get it and I agree, but that's not going to happen with DeVos, especially with her conflicts of interest:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-review-233906
Shouldn't surprise anyone she's trying to funnel more people to as much education debt as possible.

So with that option off the table, I find it hard to believe it's acceptable for universities to continue what they're doing, driving up the price until the market literally dictates that an ROI on a degree isn't worth it for most kids.

One of the problems is that kids at that age don't understand the implications, their brain is not fully developed (until about 26 science says) and it's just not realistic to expect them to make great decisions. They aren't stupid, they are just not experienced. This is a terrible way to get experience.

Getting government out of the student loan business unfortunately won't happen any time soon, but I don't see anything wrong with the public universities who accept taxpayer dollars to be on the hook (at least partially) to co-sign for the government loans they're convincing young kids to sign up for. Not everyone has good mentors/parents steering them clear of the unwise decisions, so inevitably there will be kids who buy the sales pitch of how necessary their $80k useless degree is.

When the universities have to start chipping in when loan payments are missed, they'll self-regulate how many students they accept, lower the cost, and/or invest more in proper job placement services. I got my Master's from a reputable nationally recognized public university and their job placement services consisted of very rarely sending out emails for jobs, often such as selling Cutco knives door-to-door. For Master's graduates. Once these universities get your money and you graduate they really aren't affected by low job placement rates.

You do realize that public universities are part of the State, correct? Why would the State do that and what difference would it make? The end result is that the taxpayer is actually on the hook, not the public universities.

Why should universities be responsible for job placement?

Why aren’t the public schools educating children about loans and college? Kids spend 8hrs a day, 5 days a week, for half a year in some type of mandated school for around 12 years, seems like that would be a good place to start. Then again, they are State schools and the State benefits from kids signing up for student loans.

If you agree that government is the issue then why advocate for more government involvement? Saying “it’s off the table” is a defeatist attitude that would led to no change anywhere.

It’s acceptable for schools because there is no reason for the schools not to raise prices. Everyone qualifies for a loan and the loan issuer is the State, there is no risk of default on the loan as they can just garnish your wages. The quickest and easiest way to reduce prices is to stop State backing and issuance of student loans.

All of this, right here, is why millennials are ****ed right out of the gate.

1. Public universities receive taxpayer funded grants, often for research, but the taxpayer wouldn't pay the loan. Much of the financing which keeps the university afloat is still through their customer-facing business model. So the taxpayer itself isn't on the hook as you say for the loan itself. What would happen is the university would have more expenses to help cover those $80k hospitality and liberal arts degrees when their graduates are now making $20/hr instead of $15/h and can't pay their loans. The taxpayer funds that are directed toward research would be literally criminal to divert funds for the loan.

What would get reduced is areas like salary increases (it's public info, google some and you might be surprised how some industry professionals might make $60k in their career field, but $180k teaching at a public university). It's heavily unbalanced because there no bottom to the hill where the snowball will stop until it crashes hard. It would force more pressure to limit tenure for teachers who aren't producing for example.

The professors who are using the taxpayer funds for research have an argument case that they're top in their field. If the universities crack down because their student success rate (i.e. $80k liberal arts degree), then top industry talent will gravitate toward universities who can continue to pay top wages. Then taxpayer funds get diverted to THOSE universities. The taxpayer doesn't pay the loan, but would help direct funds elsewhere giving balance to the out of control (and unchecked) tuition system.

2. Universities aren't responsible for job placement and I never said they were. I'm saying they have no vested interest because it doesn't affect them right now.

3. Agree entirely. There's plenty of missed opportunity in the entire education system even before the university level.

Sure, but most millennials I know seem to think we can solve this with more government, more intervention (because college is apparently a right), when that will only lead to more problems that will continue to hurt future generations. So while millennials may by the "unluckiest generation" they continue down the same path, setting up future generations to be the new "unluckiest generation".

College is definitely not a right. I couldn't get approved for a loan for flight training because there wasn't a way that I would've been able to pay the loan back (when regionals were paying way less than they do now). There's a valid reason for that and it's a system that makes sense. Sucks I was in that position, but that's life. I didn't have a right to it. Why the government loan process approves students for similar situations blows my mind.

$900/month is about average most places for a 2 bedroom apartment. Maybe even slightly high. I don't see a problem, especially with a dual income family.