That's quite a reach.
How is taking a small percentage of your income and being debt free somehow more of a burden than graduating with 100k in debt that cannot be wiped away even in bankruptcy?
How is taking a small percentage of your income and being debt free somehow more of a burden than graduating with 100k in debt that cannot be wiped away even in bankruptcy?
The problem is the debt? yes. The fix is not to socialize the debt into a contract with the institution. Thats just "market will fix" behaviour. I think the problem is "why are we allowing tertiary education to become this expensive in the first place"
Debt bondage is actually a thing. It has a long history in trade unionism, and in existing work conditions in India. Of course Stanford has no intention of being the serf-lord, but if the debt cycle is now bound to your choice of study, Stanford is saying "no, I've decided you will be a dental hygenist at 3% refund, if you insist on being an M.D. its going to be 5%" and before you know it, discretionary spending has vanished.
Working-poor bad-risk people will be driven to expedient outcomes, and excluded from higher life outcomes because they are not fundable. Thats fair? No. Equality of access is actually important.