What really bothers me with the article---something I think I share with top-level commenter dpkga---is throwing away perfectly fine articles of clothing (i.e., "tennis shoes"). Not to mention, expensive. These, presumably wouldn't cost a fortune to transport even overseas. I get it that maybe the student had to make a choice between, say, bulky books/notebooks/school work which may come in handy for the future but that's where the "expensive" part comes in; why even buy something expensive if there was any chance you'd discard it before its service life is up? (Other commenters have provided answers elsewhere that I consider plausible.)

The furniture (i.e., "bean bag chair") I can totally understand why they'd discard it. The only thing that bothers me then is, will they buy a similar item for next year? Because if they will, then this stuff doesn't "doesn't matter" and therefore the problem actually exists, if only because it feeds into the mindless consumer attitude which leads to over production of goods that end up in landfills if not in someone else's hoard pile.