> if banks only loaned for the rate of return of a job, we'd have engineers and no one else.

But is it really worse than the current situation - where people borrow to study something enlightening but economically questionable, and then struggle for decades as they can't pay the debts nor declare bankruptcy?

I agree that studying arts is worthwhile, both for the individual and society as a whole. But there has to be someone to tell the 18-year-olds that they can't borrow $100k for it, or they are making things worse for themselves.

Perhaps if banks adjusted loan amounts to potential future income, then arts faculties will be forced to lower tuition fees. And some students will correctly see that they just can't afford it - better to discover that before starting instead of after graduation.

No need to go to expensive university to be an artist or philosopher, especially if one acknowledges that probably noone would hire you for that. And considering the major/minor setup in US education, you could always major in something that is in demand, and minor in philosophy. Unless one believes that one needs to be pained to make art or thoughtful critique, I think we might get more of it if people were less burdened by student debt.

The idea here is that there is a feedback system causing the price of tuition to go up. Banks can lend at little risk and schools can charge a lot because students can get loans.

The hypothesis is that if students can't get the loans then the schools can't charge as much and have to become leaner. Combine this with a social change in perception of "you need to go to college to be successful" and I think the idea has merits. Simplified and not the full answer, but it definitely has merits.

But when an artist goes 100k in debt, we don't get an artist. We get a desperate barista.

Completely agree. I don't think banks should be operating like they do now. It's almost charitable in how it works. Banks, who are driven by profit, give out these loans at a massive risk.

I stand by my point because banks shouldn't be in this position. People aren't companies and they shouldn't be looked at in terms of returns. I (and this is my completely personal opinion) think either education should be free or only the government should provide education assistance.

I couldn't agree more, but should credit hours cost the same for engineering vs the arts? Could programs be 2 years instead of 4? I don't understand why we try to put education in this one size fits all bucket. The goal should be to provide more access to education at a lower cost. That is the deliverable we should be striving for IMO