> 1. 30k/year is REALLY high for tuition. Most state flagships -- which are some of the best universities in the entire world -- aren't that expensive.
So what? Prestigious schools are notoriously egalitarian toward the students. If you get accepted to Cal Tech, you are guaranteed to be subsidized. Nobody "can't afford" to go to Cal Tech, but there are people who don't test well enough.
> 2. Most private universities do have sticker prices in that range, but a) why go non-elite private
Because most people aren't even average collegiate level intelligence.
> 3. It's definitely possible to make >$10K each year while doing university full time.
Not sure what this is supposed to say, but surviving is hard out there. Especially around any school (public or private). Most people in massive debt, try to work it off.
This whole post seems a little holier than thou. Least of which is the perspective that people could (or would) attend "best universities", which is more than a little presumptuous. This debt hole is so common it appears in US media from TV (eg Grey's Anatomy, Devs, etc) to the newest films.
So, people are choosing to go to expensive universities that don't subsidize their tuition. It's a choice, and there are much cheaper options for most of the country.
If you're paying $30K in tuition and planning on a "normal" career path, then you're paying way too much.
> This whole post seems a little holier than thou
Well, if sound financial advice is perceived as a personal attack, then we're never going to solve this problem.
People whose parents can support them by allowing them to live at home for free during college can graduate with almost no debt by attending a cheap institution, working while going to school, and getting a head start in high school or community college. And most people whose parents cannot allow them to live at home will qualify for state and federal grants.
This country does have affordable college options for most people. The problem is that most people who go to college choose the more expensive options (state flagships and non-elite private universities) even though their local state university branch campuses are capable of providing a perfectly adequate education at a third of the price.
More importantly, the only way we'll reduce the debt burden on undergraduates is by providing more subsidy to state branch campuses. That will only work, however, if people choose to go to those state branch campuses. There's just no world where the taxpayer subsidizes a big chunk of room&board&tuition at research institutions for the majority of college students. For the top ~5% of students by merit, sure. But that model just doesn't make any sense when there are far cheaper options.
> eg Grey's Anatomy
Medical debt is an entirely separate issue. Intertwining it with the undergraduate debt issue confuses things -- the solution to med school debt will be different from the solution to undergrad debt.
So what? Prestigious schools are notoriously egalitarian toward the students. If you get accepted to Cal Tech, you are guaranteed to be subsidized. Nobody "can't afford" to go to Cal Tech, but there are people who don't test well enough.
> 2. Most private universities do have sticker prices in that range, but a) why go non-elite private
Because most people aren't even average collegiate level intelligence.
> 3. It's definitely possible to make >$10K each year while doing university full time.
Not sure what this is supposed to say, but surviving is hard out there. Especially around any school (public or private). Most people in massive debt, try to work it off.
This whole post seems a little holier than thou. Least of which is the perspective that people could (or would) attend "best universities", which is more than a little presumptuous. This debt hole is so common it appears in US media from TV (eg Grey's Anatomy, Devs, etc) to the newest films.