I want real change, I just don't believe this is the change that makes sense.

Changing the way colleges are paid for would make sense. Capping tuition would make sense. Making you pay a portion of your income back to the college for the rest of your life (or maybe just 20 years) would make sense.

But allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy would do more harm than good without other systemic changes.

If you are getting a degree that doesn't have good job prospects then you should pay for it out of pocket, only the rich should try for it (rich can mean middle class with a good job taking a second degree for fun). If you take a loan that means you expect the value of the degree is worth more than the loan amount over time. If you can't find such a job paying enough to make it worth it, then you should declare bankruptcy.

If the only value of the degree is it makes you well rounded, then universities should ensure that only enough people start down the path using loans as their are tenured positions expected to be open in 10 years. If there is industry demand elsewhere then meet it.

I don't know how to solve the problems of someone declaring bankruptcy as soon as they finish their degree though.

What you're essentially asking for is to create two separate classes of people. Your idea would result in us regressing back to the idea of 'philosopher kings' and I would hope I shouldn't need to argue why that's a bad idea.

People should be able to get an education no matter their social standing. It shouldn't be tied to this idea of job prospects because commodification of education is a sham.

If educacation doesn't have some sort of monetary value what is the point? Entertainment is a valid answer, but it should be in different bucket.

I did not not in any way say that some people shouldn't be able to get an education. I said if the education isn't valuable they shouldn't get one, but there are many valuable education paths to take.

Why does everything need a monetary value? If someone wants to be an artist, that doesn't necessarily come from a world of wanting to make money from their art.

And who defines whether or not an education is valuable? Teachers don't have very good job prospects (low pay means they're less valuable), do you think it would be a really good idea to restrict who can become a teacher to only the reasonably well off?

Teachers should not be paying full price at Harvard (I don't know if Havard even offers a teaching degree), there is value in a teaching degree but only enough for the much cheaper state schools.

I have no problem with people wanting to be artists. The world needs art. However I have a problem with someone spending more than they can afford on anything. Want an art degree, first get a job and save up as art will never pay the bills (there are exceptions that prove this rule). Once you can afford to live (that is eat and a tiny home: the minimums) go ahead and get whatever luxury you can afford. Some get an art degree, some a nice car, some collect stamps, you can have a family. I don't care much what you choose so long as you are not beyond your means.

To put it a different way, if you are making an investment then it needs to be a good investment with a return on investment. If you are not making an investment that is fine but then you need to be careful not to destroy your future on bad choices.

I got a liberal arts degree that by all accounts should have left me with terrible job prospects but I ended up going straight into a lucrative career path with just my BA. I know music majors who went into consulting and English majors who went to work for Goldman Sachs. Yes, they were exceptional people. None of us were rich.

Would you have gotten that great job without the education? If no, then it was valuable and you should pay for it. (we can perhaps question if it was worth the cost, but that is a different analysis and much more complex). I'm referring to those who get an education that doesn't help them get a better job.

> But allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy would do more harm than good without other systemic changes.

Why?

> Making you pay a portion of your income back to the college for the rest of your life (or maybe just 20 years) would make sense.

The REPAYE Plan already allows you to pay 10 percent of your discretionary income for 20 years and then the rest of your loans are forgiven [0].

[0]: https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-d...