| | | epicure makes excellent points about first-generation college students and debt. But your point is very important, and one I've posted about for a while.
I saw the problem first hand for 15 years at a law school that literally stayed afloat only by admitting that type of student and minorities with marginal test scores (suggesting difficulty passing the bar, or a total inability) at "sticker price" tuition. That allowed the school to subsidize more affluent admissions to bump LSAT and GPA numbers which are important for ranking and, in some schools, accreditation. The "subsidy" comes with a label of "scholarship" which appeals to parents and students, but it is nothing more than a "discount" of sticker price tuition that shifts the higher financial burden to less capable students or students without family histories of attendance at institutions of higher education.
It's an ugly and predatory practice that began when caps were raised on loans in the early 2000's. I support forgiveness for those students who were taken advantage of by institutions such as the one I worked for.
However, to your point, forgiving debt does absolutely nothing to stop the real culprit in this debacle. That is, inflated debt limits result in bloated school budgets and huge increases in costs to students (or the government if we forgive the debt).
My guess is that if we forgave 100% of all student debt (totaling over a trillion now?) tomorrow, without reforms on costs schools charge, we'd see the exact same total for student debt within several years, given or take 5 or more. |
|
