Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcalvinowens | Hacker News Reader

> By understanding this, loan products can be customized for each student in the absence of credit history to more accurately assess risk. Higher risk applicants may think twice when seeing higher interest rates and ultimately may make the decision to seek a lower product by pursuing a lower risk opportunity.

I get this argument, but IMO it would ultimately devolve into a system with a fixed set of sanctioned fields of study which only the wealthy could venture outside of. We really don't want that.

Don't forget that knowledge is an end unto itself: an educated person is better for society at large, even if they're flipping burgers for a living. The economic utility of a college education extends far beyond the student being educated.

View on HN

I don't disagree with any of your assertions. An educated society made up of well informed citizens is the ultimate goal. However why should the government be responsible for giving a less advantaged student permission and almost encouragement to pursue a path that reduces their likelihood of paying back the loan in full/on time? The necessary education for someone to be well informed should be transferred to the high school system where the student does not need to go into debt to receive the necessary education.

If there was restricted access to loans or harsher terms, people from less favorable economic backgrounds would likely not pursue those sanctioned fields, unless they had some specific advantage such as ability since this could yield to a higher chance of success.

Why don't we want that? We will never escape a little unfairness, and we don't need to. Telling a kid that their only path out of poverty is to be an engineer or schoolteacher, but art historian is not an option -- I would love for that to be the worst of our social problems.

> We will never escape a little unfairness

Of course not: IMHO, the unfairness in the current system is preferable to the unfairness you describe.

> Telling a kid that their only path out of poverty is to be an engineer or schoolteacher, but art historian is not an option -- I would love for that to be the worst of our social problems.

You're assuming the sole motivation is to make money, which isn't always the case. Some would be much happier as a poor art historian than a moderately wealthy engineer. Who are we to question that?

It would be hard pressed to argue that the government is offering loans for the ultimate happiness of the student. As the article points out, the lender is smiling when giving the loan but the end goal like any other business should be to get the funds back with interest in a reasonable time frame. If someone were to pursue a degree for happiness the government does not need to be in the business of funding that. They should be funding students looking to create a sustainable life for themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com