Let me start off by saying I don't disagree with you and I'm not trying to be confrontational/dickish here--I was a political philosophy major.
Originally Posted by Piobaire
Well that's just surprising.
I'm not asking anyone to make a qualitative judgement as to "better" but rather an actuarial judgement as to "X% chance to experience an ROI that will allow this loan to be serviced appropriately." Not everything has to be "nailed down" but we can at least put the breaks on extreme stupidity, no? It's been spoken of here how we can hardly expect an 18 year old to make good financial choices so doesn't this mean we need society to help? This only seems fair as it's society paying.
Yeah, I get that but at the same time, I feel like universities are places where we ought to encourage and allow learning for the sake of learning and IMO, a society benefits from having greater appreciation for the humanities, people interested in social work etc etc. That means having undergraduate study in those fields.
I think the concern with debt is a valid, serious issue and it probably goes hand-in-hand with the increasing cost of higher education. Maybe the answer is just getting the government out of student loans (haven't really thought about that issue philosophically so it might be stupid) or having some standardized program for the first two years which would reduce the need for $200k of loans.
Really I guess what I'm saying is: I don't have an answer or know what one would look like.