In comments to the post on college loans below, Davis has a good suggestion:
Simple solution -- have the monthly student loan payment capped at a fixed fraction of your monthly gross income, and adjust the term of the loan accordingly.
If I'm a bond lawyer, I pay back my loans over three or four years -- at $150K salary a year, I can afford to pay $30K year for four years, even if it means putting off the Infiniti, or the condo, for a while.
If I'm a school crossing guard, or a poet, $100/mo for the rest of my life, but I at least get to buy groceries.
The present system only encourages the prevalent trend in turning universities into vocational institutes. The poorer the kid, the greater the need for an immediately bankable major. Over time, classics and philosophy and other 'useless' majors will become, like the Church of England under Victoria, the exclusive preserve of the younger sons of the aristocracy.
Has anyone proposed something like this? The main problem I see is it vastly reduces the downside to entering professional schools, when what we probably need to do is increase the presumption against going that route. Too many folks go to law school for the safety of the degree, rather than trying the economically risky route first and then doing law school if they need it later. They go for the fallback before they fall. In my case, for instance, most of the folks in my life thought I should go to law school before becoming a low-paid journalist, which is precisely the opposite of how it should go. Culturally, more education is considered intrinsically better, and the downsides to going to professional schools are played down, when they should probably be played up. This could enhance that dynamic. Thoughts?
Related: A characteristically terrific column from Dahlia Lithwick on why you shouldn't go to law school.
Also: You know what's fun about having a blog? Obsessions of the day.
