There are very few circumstances wherein someone could be considered solely a victim, with no culpability for their circumstance at all. To categorize circumstances like student loan default in to these buckets -- sole victim vs sole culpability -- is to create a false dichotomy. Not saying you are, but arguments like these tend to polarize to these two endpoints quickly.

At one point in my career, I worked for a bankruptcy trustee. During that time, I learned some very valuable lessons about creditors and the importance of bankruptcy/default on lending practices. If a lender knows that a debt cannot be defaulted upon and absolved through bankruptcy, their risks are substantially mitigated. They're not eliminated, but again, this about understanding the scales of risk and fault as it relates to credit.

Outside of student loans, most credit is obtained through a process that involves the lending institution weighing the risk that the debtor will be unable to pay. The ultimate risk being that the debtor will file bankruptcy, and the creditor will take a serious haircut on their principal.

With student loans, our policy is guided by the principal that higher education is of monumental importance. Rather than simply make universities part of our public education system -- because government = bad, amirite? -- a set of policies and law making resulted in a system of federally sanctioned/backed lending institutions which were granted special status within the context of the creditor/debtor relationship. Over time, these special affordances have been extended to private lenders who adhere to regulations.

And here we are today. Capital has identified this loophole and is leveraging student debtors' future in ways that is clearly predatory. With no risk of bankruptcy, student loan creditors are empowered to garnish wages at rates up to 25%. What lender wouldn't take that deal? How much would you loan someone if you knew you could take a quarter of their paycheck every week for the rest of their life?

Clearly the debtor holds responsibility to use credit responsibly, but you can't create circumstances like the ones we have today and fall back to "Well, everyone really should just be more responsible." No, we all hold responsibility for the system that we've created, and until it changes, things will only get worse.

First of, that's a false dichotomy. The choice is not between expensive liberal art colleges and cheap CS universities. The outcome of a guy going to a cheap liberal arts college would still have been much worse than yours!

Yes, there is some individual reliability, but acting like it's peoples fault if they are good at something that doesn't pay well and don't have a hang for CS & math is dishonest IMHO. Not everyone can just study the subject that currently pays well and be good at it if they don't have a basic talent for it. I would definitely be fucked and miserable if I had to do something artsy if that would be what pays...

There are a few factors involved but most of the burden comes down to the person. What ever happened to personal responsibility and learning some financial sense?

This is the same issue with housing. Just because the bank pre-qualified you for a $500k loan, doesn't mean you should go out and buy a $500k house. You need to look ahead and think about your current financial situation, what you can honestly afford, how much can you put away into savings, will you be able to afford maintenance and repairs?

Author could of had a lesser burden had they went to a local or state university instead of starting off at private.

Properly understanding intricate financial arrangements while also being able to see far into the future just to make sure you will get a well-paying job and never get sick or get laid off, and to make sure there won't be a banks-created global financial crisis, and wrapping your head around the default-interest-fees schedule that can have you owing 5x your loan 20 years later if something unexpected DOES happen - is difficult at best for someone with decades of adult life experience. Now you want 18 year olds to have that understanding and mystical future vision.

Yelling "personal responsibility!" while having been relatively lucky in life (if you're active on HN, you're one of the lucky few among your 8 billion peers) feels like ostrich syndrome to me.

Edit: I'm also a bit sad that you want the author or young people like him to accept that the social situation they're born in to dictates what level of education they can afford and pursue. To me that's akin to saying "well, your parents are poor and on welfare, so you should probably just accept that your high school in your poor neighborhood has decades old text books that need to be shared." It's not entirely analogous I suppose - you'd say something about personal responsibility again - but looking at the photo negative of your statement looks to me like "only rich kids can go to rich college, you have to accept your position in cheap college."

> Properly understanding intricate financial arrangements

I am borrowing 200k. I will need to pay back 200k plus interest, as documented in my paperwork. I am expected to have this all paid in X years.

What is intricate about that? Don't sign something if you don't understand it, ask questions, they're free.

It's also interesting to note that access to even "financial sense" for the poor, doesn't exist.

But history, grammar, chemistry, physics and all those other subjects "are", according to most school curriculae. Arguably, those subjects are really not that necessary for most of the population to function in day-to-day situations, and yet we drill and drill it into students incessantly.

Financial sense, however, is very important for the majority of the population. Even more so for those not-so-fortunate to win the oh-so-often-complained-about "genetic" or "parental lottery".

The inner conspiracy theorist in me would have me convinced that not-teaching such important topics is the only way to keep the economy-engine churning. Efficiency and money-sense in the general populace are not things that will drive "growth" and "GDP". But I could be wrong.

> What ever happened to personal responsibility and learning some financial sense?

Does this not also apply to the banks making the loans? In other words, a bank that is willing to lend me much more than what I can honestly afford is either negligent or rapacious, but not responsible or sensible. The bank is not properly valuing the risk that I represent. If they were, I would have been denied such an oversized loan.

I have mixed feelings on this. If I lend somebody money without any reasonable due diligence on my prospects to be repaid, it is true that the borrower still owes me, but it's the height of entitlement for me to go complain to the government that I need special treatment under the law (bankruptcy...) because I made a poor lending decision.

It's unclear whether this is true or not. Prior to literacy bring widespread, it may have been looked at similarly: "I'm good at tailoring, you can't expect me to learn to read and write like a monk". But as it turns out, most people are actually capable of literacy. It's doesn't mean they become hemingways, but it allows them to do all sorts of jobs they wouldn't otherwise be able to do if we believed that literacy was a matter of personal taste or what you're "good at".

Perhaps the same is true of CS: we don't need everyone to be Hemingway here: plenty of jobs just need programming. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Even if CS turns out to be above the capabilities of most people, that certainly shouldn't mean that it's a reasonable choice to spend an equivalent amount of money getting a degree that well known ahead of time to not get you a return.

That is a valid point and definitely we can acquire a lot of skills. Still there is natural ability and personal preferences and I would think a society where everyone can learn and do what they feel like they are good and and would enjoy - even with that changing over time - would be a way better society.

Now thats of course far from the current discussion, where people are forced to get into certain debts just to study for a profession they hopefully enjoy and will be ok enough in to earn back the money they invested to learn it in the first place.

> I would definitely be fucked and miserable if I had to do something artsy if that would be what pays...

You'd be surprised at how well an analytical mind can approach the problem of getting good at an artsy field. But if you go in with the assumption that you'd be fucked, well, it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Lets further constrain it then to singing or painting, both areas where I was always horrible (and my guess would be a lot of people in tech are). I just don't see myself getting good enough at those to be anywhere competitive with other people and I definitely wouldn't enjoy it.

So if those were the main areas where there's decent money to be made, best I could hope for is get a mediocre position to earn some money to hopefully pay back my student loans while definitely being unhappy doing something I don't enjoy. The alternative would be to go into some field that pays shit, let's say CS in this scenario, where I might be excellent at but even earn less than being a mediocre painter, and hope to still make it there and at least be happy. Now the choice is much tougher IMHO that what was initially suggested.

No other loans carry the same terms as student loans. There is being responsible, and then there is debtor's hell.

You cannot (reasonably) file bankruptcy. The only escape is total disability. You are on the hook for the full amount even with a partial disability which keeps you from earning enough to pay it.

> The only escape is total disability.

Why should there be an escape? You took the debt, and the terms are you pay it back as you earn money. It was never forced on you, you accepted it. But the dice didn't roll your way so now you want to flip the board?

The best thing we can do is teach kids/teens personal responsibility. Start with a negligable debt in their school years so they know the feeling of a repayment weight hanging over their head.

Education, not regulation.

"Why should there be an escape?"

Because there is for every other type of debt?

The thing is you can't return your education.

With other secured loans they can take your house, car, etc.

Student loans? Get a 4 year ride at a liberal arts school, end up bartending and the default. There is nothing to take away.

You can file for bankruptcy but ultimately unless disabled you will be able to resume your profession.

Note that when they take your house or car, they can't take away the experiences and enjoyment you had from those things while you had them.

But this one you pay back only when you're earning money. Writing off debt isn't a magic "get out of responsibility" card.

Yes, although this was not the case prior to 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and...

BAPCPA extended the student loan bankruptcy exclusion to private lenders. Federal student loans were not dischargeable in bankruptcy prior to 2005.

There are few fields today where you can walk out into crazy salaries, but CS is one of those fields.

So what have we learnt? Nothing, apart from dataker is lucky to be interested in one of the few fields left that pays well and is feeling pretty smug about it.

> dataker is lucky to be interested in one of the few fields left that pays well

Who says dataker's interested? Maybe dataker just wanted to make more money and so chose CS. Or became interested after getting into the field. Why does your choice of major have to be something you're really interested in?

I think part of the issue is we keep selling high schoolers on the idea of "choose what you love", but in high school your breadth of experience is laughably small. Picking a major that would pay well and then approaching it with a good attitude would probably get one farther.

Yes. Get in line, cog!

Isn't this statement the exact opposite of the "follow your dreams!" mentality usually espoused on HN?

We canonize those few that are lucky and successful and hold them up as examples, but if you follow their example and fail, well, "personal responsibility" and all.

After all, your life would have been easier if you had just gotten in line.

Also the idea that people in CS should be doing it because they love it, not just for the money. I wonder how many people on HN really want more developers who aren't really interested in it.

This.

Coming from an impoverished family, I took CS as a way out of it. Eventually, I became interested, but not the other way around.

You shouldn't make it sound like dumb luck. It's very easy to look up salary statistics for various university programs, and things didn't usually change drastically in the four or so years it takes to get the degree.

Sure, I’m responsible for my debt because it’s in my name. Did I know that as a naive 18 year old trusting my not-financially-savvy parents that this was a wise decision that wouldn’t wreck my ability to produce wealth for the next decade?

Nope.

Sometimes we’re expecting not-yet-adults to make adult decisions and live with the adult consequences. And sometimes they don’t have enough information/support to make those decisions.

And its not even a matter of expecting not-yet-adults to make good decisions. They are raised in a system that teaches them that college debt is good debt and then they graduate and are courted by predatory lenders to take out way more loans than they should for their school loans with no guarantees that they will come out and get a decent job in their field. Schools should be more on the hook for that debt if they breeze someone through a program that they are not a good fit for or that has no job prospects.

Reasonably I'd expect these "not yet adults" to have been shaped by the adults in their lives such as parents, mentors, close family friends, etc. and to be supported in their decision making process by them.

Shouldn't the lion's share of the influence belong to them, and not some 3rd party dealing with the student via infomercial and pamphlet?

I don't think a person that can't understand loans is ready for college. The creditor gives you money and you have to pay them back, if you ask for too much then it'll be much harder to pay back your loan.

Many students who take loans don't even need them, but could easily pay their tuition by just getting a job.

Why punish students who believed the marketing instead of punishing the schools and professors who sold students a degree that isn't worth the cost?

Because the students chose to pursue that degree. They're the ones who signed the debt paperwork, they're the ones responsible for making sure that decision was worth it.

Here's the problem, though: since student loan debt is one of the ONLY types is debt that is almost impossible to discharge through bankruptcy, banks and colleges have almost no incentive to do proper underwriting. They are pretty positive they'll get their pound of flesh, come hell or high water. If there were better rules around getting rid of these debts in bankruptcy ("You loaned 200k to someone who wanted to get an English degree at a low tier, private college? Then you, the lender, deserve to lose."), these ridiculous loans wouldn't be made in the first place.

Then no one will issue loans to those students, who have a very high likelihood of never paying it back. You're right back to cheap schools and only issuing loans for degrees that will pay a very high salary. The whole point is to make it possible for people who can't get loans otherwise to get them, the inverse is that they have to pay them back. It's a fair trade, you want to borrow 100k for something that isn't tangible. You have no income, and a very high likelihood of defaulting, and the thing that was purchased can't be resold by the lender. That's a pretty awful deal for any lender. So if you make it possible to default then you won't see those loans being made anymore. Why issue the loan?

If you don't want a loan you have to pay back, then don't get a student loan get a personal loan which you can default on. Sure it won't be as much, but that's all you can get when you have a low likelihood of paying it back. Or enlist in the military and earn the money to pay for school. Or get a job and pay your way through school. Or go to a cheaper school, and get a more practical degree.

There are other options.

> Then no one will issue loans to those students

This is not the case, the non-dischargability in bankruptcy only came about in 2005 and there were plenty of student loans before then

Except one of the motivations for making unsecured loans available to everyone is the idea that kids should go to the best (most expensive) school independent of their parents' ability to pay.

Chicken or the egg.

Maybe. I mean - at the time of getting loans most people are around age 18 and legally adults responsible for their decisions, so sure there's that. But we're not talking about living with the decision to grow a mustache or try the paleo diet - we're talking about the decision to borrow thousands and thousands of dollars at huge interest rates, the kind of money most kids haven't seen in their entire lives at that point.

I don't think most people making this decision understand the full weight of the choice when making it, not at that age. I certainly didn't - especially when EVERYONE around you is saying that ones NOT taking the loans and getting the degree are the silly ones.

What other choices are they unable to make at age 18? Are they unable to choose whether or not to get a tattoo which may last for a lifetime? How about whether to join the military and potentially die for their country?

I'm not meaning to imply they're babies who can't make life decisions. What I'm saying is that 1) many## people aren't informed when they make the decision to take out such a large sum of money, 2) the consequences of the decision don't set in until 4 or 5 years after making the decision (bring on the cognitive dissonance!), and 3) there's incredible social pressure to do it. For many families, the degree is the Golden Ticket, which should be obtained no matter the cost.

## I'm using many in the sense of personal experience and the experience friends and family. So if you want do to a [citation needed] argument here - sure, whatever.

Irrelevant, but to entertain - they're considered too young to consume an alcoholic beverage.

At least once a week since I was 5 until I was 18, I was told that if I didn't want a job flipping burgers at mcdonalds, I had to go to university.

It was strongly implied that jobs like plumbers and electricians were for stupid people who would end up poor.

That was what I was told, my entire childhood. At what point do we start talking about indoctrination during this conversation? Because I think we should.

Indeed. This is what's led to the skyrocketing costs of college degrees, the irrational belief that without one you're financially doomed. So any degree is presumed to be better than not having a degree, which is pure bunk. So everyone "knows" you have to get a degree, no matter what.

Meanwhile kids aren't told about other options or what the reality is about degrees. Trades pay very well, different degrees have a much higher likelihood of getting you a job or a better paying job, and of course only having a degree is no guarantee of even getting a job at all.

We need to reset expectations so kids don't get sucked in by the marketing machine that is today's higher education. Your masters degree in foreign languages does not guarantee you a job. Do your research and understand, really brutally understand the field you are trying to get work in. Don't listen to the hype, ask normal people in that field how they got that job and be skeptical. Find out how many people get degrees in that field annually, and how many new hits exist in that field. You might be surprised to find out it's a small field that simply doesn't support all the graduates produced, or that a degree alone won't get you that dream job.

Not the OP you're asking. But I'd say all sorts of politician-talk can be clumped under the marketing machine that drives perverse college incentives:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/8/obama-free-co...

#Edit. Linked article was just the first I found that looked semi-related to a big politician and college-romanticizing.

Absolutely. I was devastated when I realized my life-long expectation of an academic career would have to be deferred or cancelled for financial reasons. I was furious that others around me seemed subject to no such restriction - including those I felt were less suited to or deserving of such a position. We do set kids up for failure by focusing so much on the benefits of college, while shrugging off the costs and risks. It's easy to understand how someone in an emotional turmoil like mine might see all of this and convince themselves that they owe nothing to a fraud.

We do need to address the ways in which government supports lenders' predatory behaviors, while educational institutions at all levels push unprepared barely-adults into the trap. Education prior to college must include education about student loans and the dangers thereof. After all, there are minimum educational requirements for all other subjects. Why not this one?

This is very true. As much as I understand that people need to be responsible for their own decisions, there are also unknown unknowns. If the message one receives is constantly: get a degree, it doesn't matter what, employers like to see the stick to it ness, etc. (the messages I got growing up) how are you supposed to know you are REALLY supposed to discard that bombardment and everyone has it wrong about plumbing? Some are reckless, some are just following the instructions despite their reservations.

In addition to that, people like to be optimistic. Many college graduates (even from not-very-prestigious ones) end up in careers that pay much more than plumbing, or at least have less middle class stigma attached.

One of the things that really pissed me off was that when the shell finally cracked about 3/4 of the way through my degree and I started looking at these things, I realised that actually, plumbers can earn way more than a lot of university professions.

And isn't the school also responsible for its actions?

You will never get those that believe that the poor are "lazy" to admit that they're easy prey for student loans, payday advances and high interest loans.

That's great. So some assholes are following me around and downvoting me for having an opinion. If you disagree with what I'm saying, how about having the gumption to argue your fucking point?

No. The government is for making it so easy to qualify for student loan. The school basically charges what the market will allow.

There really should be a cap to how much debt one can take on student loans.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is right.

Loaning many tens of thousands to 18 year olds is predatory, plain and simple. To pass laws making those debts non-dischargable makes it 10 times more predatory.

We all consider title pawns sleazy, but in the case of student loans, our government and our society is the predator, and our children are the prey.

What would it look like if our government wanted to be a protector instead of a predator in this case? A law limiting student loans to a small, managable amount.

Nobody force you to take loan.

Not so fast. My first lectures to freshmen deal with precisely this issue. This problem comes from, and could not survive without college administration. One problem with that is that the students have already been led to the slaughter by the time they hear any of this.

Because that's not how the world works. If I go spend all of my money on alcohol, whoever sold me that alcohol isn't going to get punished.

If you fuck up, that's on you. Not anyone else.

I recognize that I'm responsible for my debt.

But I also recognize that I'm responsible for putting food on my table, paying for a roof over our heads, paying for health insurance (that we should all get for being citizens of this country), paying, paying, paying.

This isn't about not being responsible. It's about the absurdity of garnering a ludicrous amount of debt in the pursuit of an education.

I applaud you for making your life work out right out of college. What makes you think anyone else could do the same thing? Why does your situation apply to me?

If you think you're paying too much in the most capitalistic country in the world, maybe you should just move elsewhere?

Because if you're already having difficulty financially, moving you and your family internationally is cheap/affordable?

America, love it or leave it. /s

Something is wrong if we've reached a point where only the very rich (or the very poor) can go to a nice school. And something is wrong if only certain fields of education are valued enough to cover their costs. Economic theory says that the cost of education in the less valued fields should drop, but the easy access to loans for the study of anything, which can never reasonably be paid off, prevents that from happening. Depending on which side you're on, this is a feature, not a bug.