I disagree. Historically, postsecondary education might have been limited to the disciplines of academia and focused solely on liberal arts. However, at this point, a four-year degree is an effective prerequisite to 90% of white-collar job. (Irrespective of the actual value of a degree in performing jobs, of course. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of professions don't require four years of institutional training or education to perform. Indeed, I'd wager that most careers don't require academic knowledge beyond that of a seventh grader.)

So, college has been perverted by the labor market into a corollary of the K-12, "career-preparatory" apparatus, and few students enter college in pursuit of actual intelectual stimulation. Most are simply going through the motions to get an entry level job. In effect, college has simply become a funnel from high school to the labor market. We can debate about whether or not this is good, but the fact remains that, given the current post-secondary education landscape, colleges exist to get people jobs and should be measured by that standard.

As for only K-12 being government-funded and thus career-oriented, many if not most students take federal aid of some sort, implicating public funding even for private colleges. It's impossible to disassociate colleges and government money, as federal aid pervades tuition expenditure.

I'd venture that no matter what else an education provides, if it does not enable a graduate to repay their loan, it is non-sustainable. (Whether you want to use "good" or "bad" here is up to you)

Even the phrase "public education" is broad and fuzzy. With a tremendous amount of student loans publicly-financed, with public financing also intricately involved in the public university system via research grants, there's a distinction between secondary education and higher education, but I'm not sure how much the distinction matters for purposes of broadly-based public policy discussions.

What a weirdly backwards way of phrasing it. Why should anyone take out a loan to get an education? Why would a public university charge tuition? My parents did not take out loans to get college degrees (in California, in the 1960s). But their generation got rich and now doesn't want to pay for the next generation to do the same. Should boomers who attended fully subsidized public education now really be let off the hook with their ridiculous claims that they're some kind of Randian superhero who worked their way up "on their own", and it would be "theft" to ask them to pay taxes so the same system they benefited from can continue?

It's certainly not impossible to do so, if people aren't so stingy. I moved out of the U.S. and now live in a country that has free public education. Not just free, but you get paid to attend university, up through a master's degree. (Not paid a lot, but a modest living stipend.) We have a lower unemployment rate than the U.S. does, too. And better transit and less bureaucratic healthcare.

Of course, they'd do it in the name of lending to high paying, high demand job skills and high likelihood of repayment. Under such a system, I'd have still gotten loans, but I'd rather see a system where some percent of people who make bad choices suffer from their choices, but where educational loans are widely available than a system where few are "allowed" to make bad choices, but loans are more narrowly available.

I don't want a world that's even more "rich get educated, poor don't" than today. If I look back at my family, my generation is much, much better off, primarily via education, than my grandparents who very literally mined coal and worked in a steel mill. They scrimped and saved so my parents could go to college to become teachers, who in turn ensured we did as well. That's no college to no-name college to top-name college in the span of two generations.

Of course that's only one data point, and if I read it in a paper, blog or on news.YC, I'd roll my eyes at the cherry-picking, too, because it'd be 1 story hand-selected from 100s of millions. In my case, it's 1 of 1, so I want to ensure we preserve the conditions that let my parents work hard to forge a better life for themselves and my siblings. Maybe in a world where college loans are hard to get (such as the world they lived in), this would all work out similarly, and easy college loans are in fact part of the problem, but I think there's been heaps of hidden benefits to having education being more widely available and more common that people overlook when they see Mr or Ms Bad Choices as an adult with untenable student loan debt.

>I can also see that lenders might exert their influence in ways you'd find objectionable,

If the gov't decides to use economic forces to manage the supply of college grads, I would hope that a large portion of funding would go into very productive areas. It should/would likely change over time to correct oversupply, changing demographics of society, etc.

>making lending predicated on family assets/income, requiring co-signing from a parent with a 650+ credit score,

An unfortunate but predictable outcome. Ideally, a parent with a 650+ credit score would be able to afford to support a child in college w/o much support. I have such a credit score, but probably won't be able to educate my kids based on my college instructor salary alone. Ironic, eh?

>not lending to liberal arts majors at all,

Funding the arts via loans is right out, obviously. Funding the arts is a problem that has spanned pretty much all of recorded history. No simple scheme such as mine can pretend to solve it today. Attempting to use economic/market forces in the normal manner to produce good art will only ever have comical results at best, and the nominal result will be crap. (I have an amusing idea. I'll tell it further down.)

> refusing to lend at "black colleges",

Grants? Be prepared to write off a lot of the "loans" to minority and impoverished areas. Since they are minorities, it will be cheap anyway. We could probably do away with race-based affirmative action, and simply make grants to students and institutions in impoverished places, and from impoverished families.

> or preferentially lending at Ivys, etc.

I'm also not sure how to effectively stop the well-connected wealthy from sponging off of everyone else. I could say "means testing" but we both know that these types of parasites are clever and quickly adapt to their environment. Hopefully if the rich use loans, the majority will repay them, and thus be a source of income rather than a drain. More likely, their parents will hire expensive accountants to help rid their heirs of this debt, justifying this thievery because it is "so unfair" to "tax success."

>Of course, they'd do it in the name of lending to high paying, high demand job skills and high likelihood of repayment.

Yeah, so, at least we agree that there may be a possibility for a pseudo-private-ish loan outfit to be somewhat profitable for some higher-ed funding.

> Under such a system, I'd have still gotten loans,

I could have gotten loans too, but I refused (for better or worse, I'm not sure). I had negative/neutral financial support from family, and eventually dropped out of Uni before completing my BS. meh.

but I'd rather see a system where some percent of people who make bad choices suffer from their choices, but where educational loans are widely available than a system where few are "allowed" to make bad choices, but loans are more narrowly available.

I don't want to see people suffer, but I don't think that's what you really meant. I think it would improve our economy, and the lives of many people if some of us were economically herded into productive industry. I know, it almost sounds like communist central planning, and it probably is. But letting high school seniors choose the economic direction of our country at their whim seems like a poor alternative.

I don't want a world that's even more "rich get educated, poor don't" than today.

Me neither.

If I look back at my family, my generation is much, much better off, primarily via education, than my grandparents who very literally mined coal and worked in a steel mill. They scrimped and saved so my parents could go to college to become teachers, who in turn ensured we did as well. That's no college to no-name college to top-name college in the span of two generations.

Yes, it's so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said. Education will improve everyone's life to a greater degree than pretty much anything else.

Of course that's only one data point, and if I read it in a paper, blog or on news.YC, I'd roll my eyes at the cherry-picking, too, because it'd be 1 story hand-selected from 100s of millions. In my case, it's 1 of 1, so I want to ensure we preserve the conditions that let my parents work hard to forge a better life for themselves and my siblings.

Let's call this a friendly chat over coffee, and overlook these misdemeanors.

* Maybe in a world where college loans are hard to get (such as the world they lived in), this would all work out similarly, *

I think it needs a systematic approach. The colleges themselves have to adopt ethics. It will be tough, you can't really outlaw meanness, wanton greed, stupidity.

and easy college loans are in fact part of the problem,

Greedy businessmen are sucking this money out of kids' pockets as fast as the kids can borrow it. I see it every semester. Students pay 2X, 3X, 10X, prices for books, computers, supplies, etc. because the campus store is integrated with the school and makes spending that money much easier than buying used texts from individuals, the internet, etc. The bookstore stocks lab items for my courses, but at a huge markup over retail. Next to every nasty decrepit warm-water fountain is a vending machine full of cold Dasani(TM), or better yet Coke!### Prices at the "food court" are another outrageous example. Privately financed campus housing? The same.

* but I think there's been heaps of hidden benefits to having education being more widely available and more common that people overlook when they see Mr or Ms Bad Choices as an adult with untenable student loan debt.*

Absolutely, but, I think that was probably true to a greater degree in the past, and that the [education funding] system for people in our cohort (middle-class-ish?) is tending more toward a sort of Hobson's choice of debt-slavery / indentured servitude vs. forgoing formal education.

## Arts funding should be fragmented from education funding. It should be as independent as possible from political influence. There could be divisions administered by appointees (appointed for life) who would primarily give block grants to institutions of their choosing. Funding divisions could be run in a variety of ways, but at least one should be required to only make funding decisions while under the influence of mind-altering drugs. Now that I think of it, the same arrangement might do well for science funding (especially Physics).

### Unless Pepsi has the vending "contract"

"I'd venture that no matter what else an education provides, if it does not enable a graduate to repay their loan, it is non-sustainable. (Whether you want to use "good" or "bad" here is up to you)"

Your reasoning here doesn't make any sense to me, are you claiming that if a student takes out loans in order to pay for an education in basket weaving. Then fails to earn enough money by applying their acquired expertise in basket weaving to repay that loan. That they educational institution was at fault here?

There are many colleges which will train you in skills that will pay off the entire cost it takes to attend them in under 5 years. In California alone there are 23 campuses of the California State University system, with a median four year tuition of $25,000 for state residents which will train you in a STEM degree which is less than you would pay for a new car. There are community colleges which will do an Associates degree for even less.

But you are absolutely right there is a problem here, it just isn't with the colleges (although there may be grounds for accusing them of collusion).

Come at this from a different angle, how would you like to be able to conscript hundreds, thousands, maybe even a million people into a program where some fraction of everything they earn goes right into your pocket? Sell them a government guaranteed loan that they can't afford to pay back. It was a great scam in the Mortgage business for a while, the banks made billions on it, the tax payers took it in the shorts when the bottom fell out. And why did the bottom fall out? Because those damn suckers could declare bankruptcy and get out of paying the loan! Can you imagine. Well the banks have fixed that loop hole, you can't declare bankruptcy and get out of a student loan, no way no how, you're mine for life.

And guess what, the same people who were fleecing stupid people with bad mortgages are now fleecing people with student loans. In some cases literally, like when I heard from the same Wells Fargo loan officer who used to do mortgages and now wanted to talk to me about getting loans for my college age kids.

Its a problem *for schools" if they are over priced since they need students to survive. Guess what, if they can't justify their costs they go out of business or they get more efficient. As long as there are people willing to provide the same degree for less money, the system will continue to work and anyone who wants to be a doctor, or an engineer, or a lawyer, or a geologist or whatever can get their degree.

I implore you not to let the red herring story of 'students drowning in debt' convince you that college is broken, its not, student lending is broken and students are not be properly informed with respect to what "a degree" means versus what an "employable degree" means. Once we educate them and they start spreading out to the more affordable schools the private schools will have to fight harder for the top talent and will do so with scholarships so that their 'total cost' is the same as if they went to a state school but got their 'marquee' name.

Make students more discerning shoppers and the "problems" you decry go away.

Your reasoning here doesn't make any sense to me, are you claiming that if a student takes out loans in order to pay for an education in basket weaving. Then fails to earn enough money by applying their acquired expertise in basket weaving to repay that loan. That they educational institution was at fault here?

Not at fault, just not sustainable. As in, if the students can't make enough money to pay the school, the school will go out of business. Less drastically, if a student knows they will have to take a job doing something else to pay off the basket-weaving-school loan, they will not pay thousands of dollars to learn something that can't make them that money back.

Sorry, but... what?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but why should society pay for your exploration of your interests regardless of their applicability to employment?

We use employment as a means of converting skills into economic value. This is why when you work for a company or a government institution, you are given money in exchange for the value you produce. This value is determined by consumer and citizen demand for goods and services. What this means is that you need to produce something other people want, as opposed to what you want. Otherwise you won't have a job, because nobody will need your skills and knowledge.

Public education is a contract between the citizen and the (state) government. The citizen pays taxes to fund it, and in return his/her child gets a subsidized education. But that is where the contract ends. If the kid wants a job after that, they better make sure they are making the most use of the education by learning how to fulfill consumer and citizen demand in the economy. They can pursue their interest in botanics or cultural studies in their spare time, as hobbies.

At least I think so. And that's because, at least for me, exploring my interests while worrying about my employability later, worrying about grades and every failure is pure hell, enough so to make me lose any interest I had at the beginning.

Education, in the form it takes now, is for the most part killing any joy of learning. I don't really think that this is possible to fix as long as we rely on money this much. So my conclusion is this: make the education as painless as it needs to be to make it relevant for earning money (more relevant and in a good sense), but don't prolong it far into the twenties. Let it end as quick as it's possible and let the people earn enough to pursuit their interests by themselves later.

This is why system is broken. If you want unbroken system, there should be a link between how much particular degree raises the income of its owner (after paying off the loans) and the public funding available to those seeking such degrees. If you want to study aspects of underwater basket weaving in medieval French poetry - be my guest, but do not expect a dime of public funds to be invested in it.

>>>> higher learning institutions should help you explore your interests regardless of the applicability of those interests to employment.

That is true only if you ignore the premise that is described above. However, since the public support of the higher education availability is largely based on this exact premise, I do not see how you can ignore it.