>

Idk I was a pretty incompetent idiot (nice word choice) at 18
Isn't the real issue here the limited understanding of the impact of large financial decisions at 18 rather than anything about college? If a kid comes from a wealthy family that will pay their way, why shouldn't they consider college? If our society subsidized college making it relatively "free," why shouldn't they consider college? The basic idea is that there are other considerations and solutions rather than focusing on people's age. >

There's nothing inherently wrong with continuing higher education after high school. It's arguably the best time to do so before you have other financial or social responsibilities that would prevent you from being able to dedicate yourself to it.
The problem is that everything in our society costs too much. In the past, you could pay your own way through college on a part time job. Hell, you could even buy a car and a house and raise a family on an entry-level wage. The fact that college requires crippling debt is a symptom of an economic failure in society toward the working class, not an inherent issue with a college education. Even factoring that into account, it's still usually better to go to college. >

It should be noted that being able to buy a car and a house and raise a family on an entry-level age or pay through college on a part-time job without any outside support is something specific to US in the first half-to mid 20th century. Other countries did not have it that good, even western ones. And 20th century US was a product of long-standing policies that emphasized economic growth even at the cost of immediate comfort - something that hasn't been the case for at least the last half century.
Also the countries that provide the essentials to people as part of welfare typically have some kind of cost-saving solution in place to provide people some degree of a service without bankrupting the country. E.g. if welfare provides you support to get your own place to live, it will be much, MUCH smaller than what americans have grown used to consider adequate. Even in the countries with the best welfare medicine, it will rely in using no-frills labs and consultations for vast majority of things, and only escalates to higher level if it's not sufficient. Whereas in US full-blown hospital visits are a large part of first-line medical treatment. Problem is - among the people in US who put the most energy into campaigning to improve the situation the bulk of the effort goes into "give us more money", even though the current universities and hospitals are more than capable of finding ways to use more money without necessarily improving the situation. And on the other side US has a major shortage of people who point out specific problems, provide specific detailed methods they can be improved, ideally by using stuff that was already shown to work elsewhere and who would fix the general inefficiency of US systems rather than just throwing more money at the problem - basically people who are professionals and not just activists. >


Even in the countries with the best welfare medicine, it will rely in using no-frills labs and consultations for vast majority of things, and only escalates to higher level if it's not sufficient. Whereas in US full-blown hospital visits are a large part of first-line medical treatment.

This is a frankly incredible way to spin universal healthcare as an example of welfare being "not as good" in other countries as in mid-century America.
It's true that it saves money in the long term for the government to cover preventative care, but I don't see how this contradicts the idea that everything costs too much, or that we should expand social services. If anything, it seems like an argument precisely in favor of expanding social services by treating it as an investment.
I don't know if other countries ever had an economy where a part-time job would pay for college. But does it matter, if there are countries today where you can get full college tuition paid for by the state? The net result is the same: You can send people through college without putting them into massive debt. >

Note that I didn't compare anything to healthcare in mid-20th century America. My point was that US healthcare lacks affordable providers that make some necessary sacrifices for cost-cutting but still check all the essential boxes - plus multiple other issues that result in healthcare costs to consumers multiple times higher than in many European countries before their welfare even kicks in. If you go for state provided health care at all, fixing those things is  basic common sense. For that matter addressing costs, e.g. bringing them to general western level (not counting welfare contributions) will make US healthcare significantly more accessible even before you follow up with any welfare. On the other hand it's throwing more money without fixing actual problems a la Obamacare that is a waste of time. US uses around 18% of its GDP on healthcare, which is a ridiculous amount (second highest is 12%). Considering how many Americans go without proper healthcare, getting good level to everyone at current prices would require over half of GDP, which is not realistic. >


...good healthcare at current US prices...

A single payer would pretty much automatically do a lot to reduce prices. Even Medicare seems to do a decent job here. And, honestly, painting this in terms of what it'd cost the state comes off as a propaganda tactic these days.
But I'm curious why you think Obamacare was a waste of time. It didn't solve every problem, but it did solve plenty of actual problems. Preexisting conditions is the obvious one. >

I was talking about GDP, not government budget. I.e. right now US spends on healthcare 18% of combined earnings of everyone and everything in the whole country - individuals, business, the state, etc. And expanding the scope to cover all the people currently going without proper healthcare would drastically increase that percentage regardless of who would handle it - the government or business. Economy of scale only goes so far.
Personally I think that this whole subject got too mired in the usual left-vs-right debates that people kind of miss the point that neither side pays much attention to addressing the underlying issues (a few voices on both sides do, but they are the minority).
To clarify, I believe that Obamacare was effectively stillborn when it comes to its main premise, that is improving the overall quality of healthcare by subsidizing it to people with lower income. US doesn't have much room to increase the spending to the point where it would make an impact - primarily due to grossly inflated costs. That said. it was a huge bill with a lot of initiatives in it, and I'm not trying to argue that each and every one of them was completely pointless. >

This is very US centric, no? 
In other parts of the world the cost of education isn't nearly as prohibitive and people get full citizen privileges like voting and drinking as soon as they hit 18 as well.
It seems to me the core of your issue lies not in superior education itself, but in the hostile conditions that impede it in the US. >

Yes, very anti-US. I envy you guys >



College is optional. Nobody has to go at all. Anyone who chooses to go, should be smart enough to research their choices and the implications of student loans. 


Gap years are so common that most colleges allow incoming students to defer enrollment their first year. 


A $300k price tag in the US is for private colleges. State college  average cost for 4 years is $125k. In some states like NY if your family makes under $125/year tuition is free. Community college is far less at $5k a year. And all of this depends on your income level and how much financial aid you receive. This is all information that is publicly available. If you choose to attend a private college you can’t afford, see my first point. >

Absolutely valid point. >

If they change your view a little give them a delta >

They're valid points, but they don't address OP's view. It is unfair to pressure 18 year olds. >

The opportunity cost for college is at its lowest point right out of high school. That is the main reason to go then. >

Yep - if you’re going to go at all, that time immediately after high school is when your remuneration at any job will be at its lowest point, so you’re best applying yourself then.  Also, you’re the most-likely to have the least responsibilities/obligations at this time (kids, mortgage, marriage) than any other time in your life. >

Almost nobody is taking on $300k worth of loans. 
As for "pressure" the reality is that a college education affords you significant upward economic mobility if you come from meager means, and is critical to remain financially stable if you come from a financially stable family.
Further, there are important skills you learn in college that you don't learn in high school. Statistical literacy. Formal/professional writing. Critical thinking. Ability to read technical reports and understand what is being discussed. These skills are all equally taught no matter what your major is, and all are important in most modern careers.
Further, college serves as a community for building a professional network. In addition to the network of people you meet in your classes and day yo day life, you also have access to university-organized job fairs where you can talk directly to industry recruiters. 
Finally, regardless of your major, a college degree can be a critical stepping stone towards professional careers such as medicine, law, business, etc., and in fact those diverse major backgrounds can be a boon for applicants to these sorts of programs.
So, college is actually a good thing and it is not necessarily a problem that an 18 year old doesn't know precisely what they want to do with their lives.
The alternative is also just not as good. Let's say you take 5 years off to work menial jobs before deciding to go to college to pursue a career you love. Now your study skills, reading skills, writing skills, etc are unpracticed for 5 years. You're older and may have other responsibilities in your life that will interfere with your studies (especially kids!). And you're likely to have less time to actually work in your chosen career to pay off those loans. So, you get less out of it and you're less prepared for it. Is that a better solution? I don't think so. >

Agreed with all of that.  And his $300K is nonsense; the average debt at graduation s $29K. >

When I was in high school (class of 2017), we had military recruiters - quite regularly; they'd set up a booth in the cafeteria at lunch and give out little prizes if you could do 10 burpees or whatever - but no college recruitment, ever.  Just to clarify, would you say the same reasoning applies to pressuring them into any sort of binding decision like that?
That aside, I would point out a few factual considerations.  I don't know if they'll be decisive, but on the chance that they could be:

Typical debt on graduation, for those who have any, is about $30k; $300k would be more like the sticker price (for four years) of an expensive private school.
Changing their mind about career doesn't necessarily mean more time in college; most majors are applicable to many professions, unless they want to go into a few licensed fields, and changing majors in the first two years often has minimal penalty anyway. >

Precisely.  The idea that college is job training is simply wrong.  Only a few majors directly lead to jobs; nursing, engineering, and architecture being the ones that come to mind.  The rest are all academic disciplines; math, English, literature, history, government, political science, chemistry, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and so on.  None of those are direct-to-job majors.
And all majors take essentially the same classes the first 2-3 years.  You only really have one year of the four that’s dedicated to your area of study.  And about a half year of electives which, depending on what’s chosen, may or may not have anything to do with your major directly. >

Your main gripe appears to be that there is a lack of maturity and responsibility among 18-year-olds, and that this prevents them from being able to make decisions regarding college/uni.
Im not American so i don’t know how exactly the voting age works - but you seem to equate seriousness of the supposed disenfranchisement and legal disadvantages with not being able to drink or smoke so I’ll view them as not very limiting. That notwithstanding, these supposed legal limitations can be set independently of their ability to make decisions, so it’s not fair to assert that they don’t have the ability to judge the implications of going to uni based on such rules. 
You suggest that it’s flippant to go to college at the age of 18 as one wouldn’t  know what they want to do with their lives - which I view as totally illogical because that is where you will go to figure yourself out, most people I know who went to college did not know where they would end up but found their career, passion, etc while there. 
You also point at this American debt issue, again I can’t make in-depth judgements about it, but these days a college degree is pretty much required for a well paying job. As someone else pointed out, the return on investment is positive so while yeah, the debt is ludicrous, a college degree is better overall. 
The age of eighteen is the prime time to go to college/ uni imo, your ability to learn does start dropping off in your mid-to-late 20s. Your college years aren’t for making concrete decisions, that’s for later in your life. If the ages of 18 to 22 or beyond are best used learning and exploring and after 25 is when you temper down and mature, then youd ought go to college right out of HS. >

Does this just have to do with high tuition cost?  In certain countries, college education is very cheap.  You think it is fine in these countries for 18 year olds to go straight into college? >


How is an 18 year old, who is legally barely capable of anything, understand the true implications of such a decision?

Most aren’t spending $300k. You’re off by an order of magnitude. The current average isn’t even over $30k. 
Even at $30k debt that’s an entirely reasonable amount of money to spend to get a $900k lifetime return. 
Where’s the issue? Spend some now earn more over your lifetime. >


There are numerous studies that show that only a small percent of degrees are actually profitable. 

Citation needed.
The median high-school-only full-time income is well under the 25th percentile bachelor's-or-higher income, so a large majority of four-year graduates out-earn most high-school-only graduates. >

Which means... 84% make less.  That's the opposite of your point.  Most college grads out-earn most high school grads, like I said.
For that matter, the first heading on your first source's full report is "Earnings Generally Increase
with More Education".  And take a look at Fig. 5 - bearing in mind that the median lifetime income with a high school diploma is $1.6M (Fig. 2), every single category of majors out-earns the median high school graduate (the lowest being Education, with a median of $2M).  Your source conclusively and consistently supports my claim.
No one is denying that exceptions exist. >


Yes but my point was not all degrees are profitble not that collage doesnt give you a chance to make more money.  

You specifically said only a small percentage of degrees are profitable. "A small percentage" is not "not all". As I said, no one denies that exceptions exist. >

In that case, sure. I don't think it's really disputed that, say, social work or education is poorly paid given the degree requirement, and not a great investment financially. >

I felt this way for a while, but the success rate for post-secondary education is fairly decent. I've also heard multiple arguments that many younger people have an easier time with a full-time course load than older people do. In my own experience, coming back to college at age 26 was better for me mentally, but harder financially. I'm 33, and still haven't completed a degree because my financial and mental health problems push me to take extended breaks while I save money and regroup internally. Anecdotally, many young students are used to full-time education, because it's all they've ever known. It's easier for many to just stay in the grind and knock it out before moving on to the next stage in life.
Personally, I think the problem isn't that we push kids in too young, it's the way we handle tuition. The US does alright overall, but many countries handle school finances and culture differently, and have better overall outcomes for students.
Lastly, it's worth a nod to your argument in that high school students in the US aren't often made aware of trade schools and other  post-secondary education options. Maybe we would see success rates rise if students with talents outside of traditional education were encouraged to pursue those, rather than pushing them into the same system as "everyone else." >


So where is this logic when it applies to college?? We actively encourage kids to place themselves into binding contracts where they may have to spend a decent chunk (or the rest) of their lives paying back up to 300k in student loans.

Nope.  They got ONE loan for ONE semester.  Attended classes for 4 months while talking to teachers and peers.  And then decided that it still made sense and took out ANOTHER loan for another semester.  And so on…. a lot more times.  At any point they could realize it was a mistake, if they decided that, and leave.
And the average debt at graduation, is $29K. >

Fair. >


barely able to vote

You're either old enough or not. And at 18, you can vote. As a matter of fact, booze, cigarettes and running for President of the US are pretty much the only things you can't do. You are considered an adult in almost every other way. Stop infantilizing 18 year olds and treating them all like incompetent idiots.