Allowing any random 18 year old to sign for a $300,000 unsecured loan is insane. At that age, most people simply can’t calculate the risk they’re taking. At that age, you are programmed to think you’re invincible and take unreasonable risks. It’s why we send 18 year olds to war. No one else would take those odds.

They don't get loaned $300,000 in the first year. It gets doled out over 6 years (a Master's program). That's $50,000 per year. At any point they can quit (and only be liable for the debt up to that point), transfer to another school, or change majors.

At what point do you consider the person a functional adult and assign some responsibility?

> It’s why we send 18 year olds to war.

18 year olds are most likely to survive the rigors of combat. Survival rates drop steadily from 18 on.

> No one else would take those odds.

Plenty do. The US, for example, has had an all-volunteer army since the 1970's. The Navy and Air Force have always been all-volunteer. My dad volunteered at 23. A lot of volunteers were rejected for being too old.

It doesn't apply for film school, but there are plenty of scam law schools that sell students on the prospect of massive future earnings my juking the stats. For example, it's common to say that some high percentage of past students are employed after graduation, but it's often an outright lie or the numbers are padded by the university giving low-wage sham jobs to most graduates.

Of course, you _can_ find information and protect yourself from even these scams _most_ of the time, but I don't think the "just do your due diligence" argument holds enough of the time to dismiss the general argument being made, even if it applies to specific cases.

If you can show me that simple google searches won't show reasonably correct information, that would be a good point.

Besides, it seems weird that the senior class would never notice that the class that graduated just ahead of them is working at the car wash?

A bit late to find out in year n-1 of an n year program.

Ya don't think they'd tell the n-2 year students? Do they have a conspiracy of silence? Do they have no friends from other years?

So everybody should drop out after they first start to hear second hand info about it? And it’s their fault if they don’t or if they do but they’re on the tail end of the grapevine so it takes a few years? And that’s the system working justly?

If you imagine the uncertainty and justifiable inertia involved in a realistic scenario, I don’t see how you can dismiss arguments that it’s not necessarily just the fault of kids for not doing due diligence.

> So everybody should drop out after they first start to hear second hand info about it?

Choices are:

1. continue, rack up $300,000 debt with no way to pay it off

2. change majors to something that pays

Which do you think is the sensible decision?

> just the fault of kids

You're infantilizing them. They are adults. They can vote. They can drive cars. They can sign contracts. They can join the military and command others. They go to the big boy prison if they commit crimes. They can consult with their parents or anyone they respect. They can marry. They can have gender reassignment surgery.

They can use google. Just like you and I can.

They're not victims.

Do you really believe they spent 6 years studying a major and had no clue what the career prospects were? I don't.

My example was still for a law school. You've gone back to film school again.

You expect a 15-17 year old to have the life experience to deal with this? They've been told exactly what to do their whole lives. Then they have been told how amazing and great and awesome they are, surely they won't be the ones coming out at that bottom wage.

Masters' degree students are 22-25. They don't go to college until 18, either, and even then they have FOUR years to figure out how to google starting salaries for their major. And if it doesn't look good, they have time to change majors, or at least stop digging deeper.

Why not just allow people to declare bankruptcy on student loans, like all other loans?

Then the onus would be on the banks to only lend to people who they thought could repay.