In Debt to Society

Hello Readers,

This post is more of a musing and a question-raising post than an actionable statement. My questions, which have been weighing on my mind lately, are as follows: "Is it sustainable for a society to burden students with debt?" and "Is it fair for a society to burden students with debt?"

In the US it is not uncommon for many students to take out substantial amounts of student loans (i.e. loans that can take a decade or more to pay off even with a decent job) to fund their education beyond high school. Many Europeans that I have talked to about this practice find it appalling since their systems of higher education tend to be covered largely if not solely through taxes and government subsidies. However, which system is more sustainable and more fair?

Initially, some would argue that education is a basic human right and ultimately a well-educated population results in a more prosperous society. Thus, it makes sense for governments to give anyone who is willing and able as much incentive as possible to obtain a thorough education.

In opposition to that point of view, it could be argued that without an incentive to finish one's education many people would simply "free ride" or take advantage of a free education as an excuse to avoid work. (Although from personal experience I find this argument difficult to believe.)

Further, it could also be argued that by forcing students to take out loans to cover their education, the system forces students into a social contract - an obligation to use the skills and knowledge obtained from their education for the betterment of society. Or in lieu of taking out loans this obligation could be met by the individual joining an armed services program or simply avoided by having one's parents pay for the education ahead of time. In this way, it could be argued that expensive educations are sustainable in that they bind the student to the society in which they are educated by obligating them to work at least until the loan is repaid.

However, I would argue that this is not the case. In fact, rather than creating a social contract that compels the student to use their skills and knowledge to work toward the betterment of society, the current US higher education system encourages the student to use their education to which ever means earns them the most money personally... if for no other purpose than to get by and pay off the loan! Furthermore, I would also contend that for those graduates who are interested in working for the betterment of society rather than for profit are essentially making a double payment on their social contract.

Consider that a college graduate who is working for a non-profit organization or as a public servant puts all of their efforts into improving society and must also pay off their student loans on a typically meager salary. Whereas, a college graduate who is working in a for-profit organization is working (by definition) to improve the lot of an individual or group other than society at-large but is likely making more than their non-profit counterpart. Now, some would argue that through capitalism the for-profit worker by contributing more directly to GDP is benefiting society at least as much as (and possibly more than) the non-profit worker. I do not believe it is that easy to judge. Thus, it curious that the 'market signals' for which type of career to pursue point in only one direction.

With these initial arguments laid out, I would be curious to hear what others have to say about the matter. I am ultimately undecided. What do you think? Also, if students don't pay for their own education who should? Does the benefit that society gains from a better educated citizenry mean that society should pay for the education? What type of system will better foster a more sustainable society?

Thanks,
Sean Diamond