>

Personally If I had taken a year or so off after high school I’m not sure I would’ve gone back to college. I was still in the school/education mindset and it would’ve been hard to get back into it. Even after I graduated with an undergrad degree someone mentioned going back for a graduate degree, and there would jsut be no way.
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. >

Idk I was a pretty incompetent idiot (nice word choice) at 18 >

People CHOOSE to go to expensive schools. My entire college education including room and board for a B.S. in a stem field cost less than 40k. >

Smart.  You can get an engineering degree at a state school for under $40k. >

Cruel and predatory? Feels like you just chose 2 random negative words because you didn't want to say 'bad' twice.
Also your issue doesn't seem to be with studying, but with getting tuition. Maybe you should argue for free public education instead. >


Feels like you just chose 2 random negative words because you didn't want to say 'bad' twice.

That's the mark of an educated man. >

That's the mark of someone wanna trigger emotional response form reader. It's a
stretch to use those words in this post >

Fortunately American colleges treat students like children in lots of ways, from making sure they are housed to keeping attendance in class. So that more or less works out OK. >

How does predatory fit in here? Colleges do advertise, but the people doing most of the advocating don't stand to gain anything from the bad advice.
Is it the government providing loans that's predatory? Leaving aside someone that's politically left having to state the government is predatory; I assume just like with private companies, the terms of the loan are straight forward; They tell you exactly what the loan will cost if you only make minimum payments. This actually seems less predatory than companies selling products where they omit problems or important context with the product (eg - iRobot doesn't clearly tell you the various sensor issues their vacuums have).
So who is the predator here? >

The problem here is not sending young adults to college. That's a good idea because both their school knowledge and learning methods are still there.
The problem is a system where going to college costs 300k. >

But it doesn’t.  It would only cost that if you paid nothing, went to the most-expensive private school you could find, and did it all with debt while also funding your living expenses with debt too.
The average debt at graduation is only $29K.  So, clearly, few have that type of debt.  Certainly vanishingly-few who are getting bachelors degrees.  Most people who get into six-figure debt from school end up lawyers and physicians. >

I was a "non-traditional" student, so you're preaching to the choir. But I can think of a few reasons why social pressure to go straight to college makes sense:

Keep the momentum going! It's very hard to go to the "real world" and then back to school. You get caught up in life: rent, bills, freedom, etc. Not everyone has the luxury of staying with their parents, and the USA does not have the social support networks in place to enable gap-year folks like some other countries.
Return on investment! Kickstarting your career early can provide some crazy high return on investment. Both literally, in the form of early investing in stocks, as well as more figuratively in the form of higher career trajectory and fluidity.
Societal impact! On a macro scale, what we want is productive and contributing members of society. Pushing folks into school might not be the best for an individual, but it's very likely best for society as a whole.

And I can think of a direct counterpoint to your assertion, as well. It's no more predatory than the fact that an 18 year old can open a credit card, sign a mortgage, get married, take out a car loan, sign up for life insurance, etc. All those things can be tools, and can also be predatory when abused by assholes looking to profit. And the people getting preyed on really run the whole gamut of society - there are 50 year olds who are signing objectively bad loans, racking up tens of thousands in credit card debt and signing mortgages way outside their means. So unfortunately I don't think this particular industry is any worse than all the others in which an individual can shoot themselves in the foot by not thinking critically about their choices. >

OP: Going to college is not close to being cruel and predatory. Setting up someone for failure is.
Being around an scholastic environment with people who are seeking to improve their lives and education is legitimately the opposite of what you have said. 
Guess what else you can take at college. Trade school programs, certifications, and the degree to ensure your knowledge and success. 
Most people can even get financial aid for help! You don't need to go to a Ivy league school. Now adays most employers don't give a fuck. You just have to be educated and able to do the job.
Guess what? Humans need to learn and need to face resistance in the mind and body to improve and strengthen. Heavy weight and resistance will force the body to build muscle or strength. Learning will force the mind to expand it's capabilities.
A young person, especially someone around 18 is vulnerable to negative influence. They really should be around positive people and a positive environment. There are many vices that will ruin a life, and trust me on this. The worst influencers are seriously not trying to go to college and improve their life. >


Most people can even get financial aid for help! You don't need to go to an Ivy league school. Now adays most employers don't give a fuck.

Correction: nobody gives a fuck.  Other than pretentious dummies or people whose goal was to skate through life on the “good old boy’s network” of grads from their alma mater. >

I used to have the same thought about drinking and smoking, but what benefit does either have more than college?
I don't think the problem is that they go to college, I think the problem is they go to college wanting a degree in something that they were told in high school would make them 6 figures starting salary.  So they jump in for the money and never figure out what their passion is which leads to a college degree that becomes useless when they realize they can't get a job. >

The way I approached college was to start taking core/required classes (English, math, history, government, etc) while choosing electives that were subjects that looked interesting but I knew nothing/little about.  Doing that helped me find the major I wanted.  And, while I never worked in that field after graduating, it held me in good stead and I was successful in the field I ended up wanting to work in. >

In 1969 when I first went to uni there was any government loans, the tuition was $200 a semester with no limitations on credit hours taken, then gov loans came in and tuitions sky rocketed and have continued to do so ever since along with restrictions on how many subjects you take. I agree this was a predatory act done intentionally so schools could make money, kind of a sideways attempt at government sponsored education. >

I think trade schools don't get mentioned often enough as legit beginning on a decent career path. >

Most kids see no glory in such blue-collar work, feel they’d have “settled” and be looked down upon, and also see four years where they can continue hanging out with their friends while not working, versus taking a full-time job and “getting started”.  Not hard to imagine they prefer to easy “glory” path to the “get busy and become a taxpaying member of society” path. >

Because if they don't go immediately they likely will never go.  
Which for many wouldn't be a bad thing. >

I sure wish I had more time to figure out what I wanted to do. Tuition is relatively cheap where I am and my parents paid for it - but I studied something I have no passion for, so my outlook is not great right now. I wish I had the funds to go back and get another degree but it would mean going in debt and being financially fucked for who knows how long. If I took a few extra years to work and have a better idea of what I wanted to study I probably would've made a better decision and been in a better place now? who knows >

This!! >

See if your school has a Co-op program. You work 6 months and go to school for 6 months. >

That’s smart >

I propose your issue isn't with college itself, but the government and culture surrounding college.
For example, tuition for college was massively subsidized before Nixon made sweeping cuts to it, in order to silence political dissenters from colleges.
College education does provide valuable skills. It's predatory nature comes from legalized price gouging of tuition and needed materials. On top of this, the government profits on the loans it gives out for school. Not only are you required to pay taxes for life to fund education, but you're required to pay extra in the form of student loans+interest.
Colleges are aware of this and do profit on it. The worst of it comes in the form of politicians profiting on these loans (by owning private lending businesses, voting to increase their wages using taxes, requiring military service to join without massive debt then profiting on military action).
It's not the college doing this. It is a design of a proto-fascist state attempting to squeeze all value out of its lower classes. 
You are becoming more aware of it and that's good. >

Pretty much an American thing. Very common for kids to take a year or two off elsewhere. Do what you wanna do and find the person you want to be. >

I'd have to do research, but the only difference I'd make is to say either, "It has become cruel and predatory," or, "It has always been cruel and predatory."  Tuition has soared, and predatory loans have replaced grants for poor students, but I'm skeptical there was ever a time college delivered all it promised.  I think poor people saw college as a thing rich people did, so they thought if they did it they could get rich too, or at least less poor, but when you graduate you find the rich kids were just legitimizing a position that was always waiting for them, and you're still gonna have to strive and struggle. >

Definitely the latter >

300k in loans if that 18 year old gets a PHD.
Most bachelors are hella affordable. I paid for mine by working as a chinese food delivery driver part time, class of 2016. >

I agree when it comes to the loans, total garbage. >

Particularly when those 18 year olds are having to go into the kind of debt people who are buying houses go into. It’s not a reasonable expectation >

I believe the pressure is actually a mix of permanent "branding" of a concept and a false illusion to reality.
"Going to college will get you a better paying job"
I know many and I'm sure many of you know folks who have these fancy papers going "i r koolage stewdent" and the person is working some crap job/temp till they find something that lets them use said piece of paper.
A mix of schools and businesses (both work and loan company's) have either purposely or unpurposely set a form of gate keeping for "better jobs" and the only way to do said learning is to pay X$. Don't got the money?  here sign this paper work putting you into heavy if not life long debt to learn this thing.  No no ignore folks who have the degrees who even 10/20/30 years later are still paying it off cause the terms are not fair or in your favor. But you don't got a choice in lenders short of government aid but you better be poor or getting lots of scholarships. 
It is beyond predatory and the fact the government is currently going "these debts have cause decades of harm" is proof they are really fucking stupid.  Sadly the folks fighting it so hard is another unrelated topic.   
To end this tho I share the same view on kids/"new" adults are forced into a position they shouldn't be due to a social structure that has proven detrimental for not just the individual but to the country as a whole. >

I think you're conflating the decision of college with the decision of taking out student loans.
I agree that an 18 year old should not be able to take out so much in student loans for a degree that everyone knew at the time wouldn't pay for itself. But I disagree that college is inappropriate for 18 year olds. 18 is a formative time in a person's life and college can be a good way to expose a person to many different perspectives and experiences that they otherwise wouldn't have an opportunity to experience. >

The problem isn't getting an education. The problem is;

being convinced to go to overpriced universities which won't help you in the long run. Don't go somewhere for 100k to get a degree to be a high-school teacher
Being convinced to go after careers that won't make you money. Ive lost count of the number of friends who got degrees that can't be easily monetized and then they have to go back for more schooling. >

No. But there are different paths to success in college. From Community College, part time schedule, online, to full class load on campus. Parents and teens should make an honest assessment of what they can handle at 18. (Even a gap year) >

No one forced me to go to college.  Went in very early 2000s.

It was the best option I had at the time, after working moderately hard in high school. Mostly, grant money paid for classes at a pretty good state university. I only ended up owing a little under 5k and that’s primarily because I had a few majors.

The other options were the military, trade school, or probably a minimum wage, none of those options were appealing to me, besides I could still do those things and have a 4 year degree. 
But, I would’ve been terrified with those options only because of no fall back.
I could’ve opened a business, but I can do that and did that while going to school.  
I’m also in a state where you can get a full ride with a 3.0. I did have a chance to go to a couple of higher end universities, but I know it could put my family and I in a tight situation. 
I think I actually took much more money than what I owed. And, actually loved college. Everyone always talks about their fondness of grade school. Elementary was ok, hated middle school and the first part of high school. It was awful 
What I will say about college- if you’re a terrible student or hated school, then you probably shouldn’t go. It only guarantees a job for fields that require extensive training and knowledge of a specific fields.  Though, you have an opportunity to make your path to jobs or careers in college, while being there or taking proper steps for the future. 
There’s your career services, electives, seminars, company recruitment, program recruitment, career development, etc. Some of the programs are so evil they pay your way to school. Oftemtimes, if you do well in college and have a wealth knowledge with impactful majors. You pretty much will have your pick of jobs. >

If student loans/debt wasn't a factor, would you still believe that "it is cruel and predatory that we as a society pressure 18 year olds to go straight to college after high school"? >

No not at all. I still don’t like that there is a stigma around those who do not go to college but I think the costs are nonsensical >

Then it sounds like you don't actually agree with your own title to begin with? I don't know if they let you edit titles, but it might be good to put an amended title at the top of your main post that more directly opposes predatory loans and debt. And I can't disagree with you on that part. If I were 18 and wanted to take out a $100k loan to start an underwater basket weaving company I would get laughed out of the bank, and rightfully so. I don't have the credit to make such a poor decision with someone else' money. But if I take out $100k to get an underwater basket weaving degree, they'll happily screw me over for life. >

I agree with lots of your point, so I’m going to challenge the idea that encouraging education itself is predatory.
40 years ago, a person could put themselves through an undergraduate degree with a part time job, incurring minimal debt and paying it off quickly afterwards. Even if they never used that degree, they grew, learned things, and weren’t in decades of debt for it. 
Then policies changed around student loan debt and the cost of secondary education skyrocketed. Someone else who’s more educated in the subject can better speak on the nuances of why this occurred, but it fundamentally changed the landscape so that schools jacked up prices to the insane cost we see today. 
This in my opinion is the part that’s predatory - folks who took advantage of the growing demand for secondary education. An educated society benefits everyone in it, and encouraging 18 year olds to broaden their minds and learn things while their brains are young and plastic is not inherently a bad thing. The predatory part is that we allowed some folks to stand in the way of education because they needed to make loads of money off of it. It didn’t start out that way. >

Ngl, didn't read the post BUT I went straight into college and dropped out my senior year because of burnout (at 19) and if I had waited a couple years that wouldn't have happened. So I agree. >

Yeah, I’m in my junior year and I’m completely over it. I feel much more supported by my community outside of college and have a true sense of belonging there. I have a career I’m really excited about and I feel that college is putting it on hold. I am probably going to finish my degree but ugh >

Yeah, I'm gonna finish my degree... Eventually. I need my mind to heal. I just joke and tell people I decided to take my gap year a little late but the fact that I dropped out haunts me everyday. Do your best to keep at it. >

Why should 18-yr olds be allowed to drink & smoke? Those negatively affect one's life, but learning more is beneficial. Sure you have to pay for it but professors don't teach for free. >

Predatory 🤣🤣🤣 >

Ever heard of predatory loans? >

Yes, but until today I had never heard of predatory higher education opportunities 🤣🤣🤣 >

I pressured both my kids NOT to straight after school.  They ignored me and went anyway. >

I'm confused. Is the argument really that it's unjust to send kids (back) to school at 18, or that they can't drink and smoke? >

A better argument would be that 18 year olds have received little to no education on financial literacy. A few hundred thousand in loans sounds like an insane amount but they may have little to no context as to how long that will actually take to pay off. The loans also could not be issued by any bank to an 18 year old for any other reason due to safe lending laws.
Also the issue here is the cost of college, not what age they go to college. It’s not really that much better that I wait until 25 so that I understand how badly I’m getting fucked over before doing it >

Is it *just" the cost of college, or is it pressuring 18 year olds to make a decision they may not have full context to understand? Should they go to college? Trade school? Gap year? Internship?
Should an 18 year old feel rushed to go to college immediately after high school when they're not sure of what they want to do yet? Because if they decide they don't like the college path they've chosen, they'll still have to pay those loans off, but won't have a degree.
Personally I was pushed into making a decision ASAP, I had about a month after high school before I was being threatened with getting kicked out, so I chose trade school, didn't like it, wasn't good at it, wasn't a fit, but graduated for the sake of graduating and never worked professionally in that field. I still had to pay 14k in loans, which is no small amount for someone that young.
It's not so much the cost, but the value you get from the cost. >

No it's entirely the cost. The downside you described only exists because of the cost. If the cost wasn't there, then whats your downside? Oh no I'm 21 and have decided to take my life in a different direction? >

Well... it sounds like you're actually arguing that it's cruel that we make people pay for their college rather than providing it free like primary/secondary school. That's a very different view. 
The reason it's encouraged to continue with higher education after high school is exactly because people's brains are less plastic after about age 25. It's not that you can't learn after that, obviously... but it does get progressively more difficult (edit: and therefore, to your apparent actual point, more expensive). 
So yes, it makes complete sense if we want an educated populace (which we do, because the world is more complicated than it used to be), that people be encouraged to get that education young. It's just going to get harder and slower as you age. >

Alot of people in this thread are campaigning hard for thr benefits of college. And I 100% agree, the stats don't lie. But it's more nuanced than that. As an elementary school kid I always heard from my teachers "you need to go to college to be successful" and that's not inherently true. What is not often talked about is choice of major, which imo is an even more important choice than choosing whether to go to college or not. 
Alot of 18 year Olds don't know what they want to do, and I saw  many MANY people get degrees in stuff that hasn't helped them at all. Or change degrees after wasting alot of time and money on their first degree choice. What I'm trying to say is that engineering degree and a theater degree are 2 different things. I could graduate with an art degree tomorrow and it's no guerentee I make 6 figures ever. Granted, I'm sure there are art majors making alot of money, but the job field isn't exactly as fruitful as other majors. 
Even things like teachers. My brother Is a teacher and my other brother with a trade job makes twice as much as him without needing a degree >

A lot of people in this thread probably went to college. >

Based on this I’m assuming your a teenager.  First, noones getting student loans for 300k. Second, college is smart do it. Alternatively, you can just work at a gas station the rest of your life or try to make it as an influencer.
Most of my friends that did not go to college and had the same thought process as you are currently having a hard time financially in their 30s. >

I am a full time undergrad student  but I wish I had been more financially literate and better prepared for the decision I was making prior to enrolling in a four-year university. I also think it is inaccurate and quite absurd to suggest that people without college degrees will become “influencers” and gas station workers when options such as trade and technical schools exist. >


I wish I had been more financially literate and better prepared for the decision

This is an argument to support the fact that your education was inadequate prior to college, not an argument against college itself.
Yes, K-12 schools should teach a lot of life skills, including financial literacy, that would benefit all students in their future decision-making. What you'll discover as you get older is that you spent a lot of time in school learning stuff you will never use — time that could have been spent teaching you things that become hard lessons later on. School generally prepares you for more school, not life. >

I don’t know what school you went to but I have never had a class in financial literacy in my entire schooling. I do agree that my education prior to university was inadequate, but it is not common to learn financial literacy in school >

Yes, I agree. It's not generally taught in schools. This is a problem. 
But my point is, it's the real problem you're pointing to. Despite 13 years of education, you were not properly prepared to make these decisions that everyone knew were coming. The issue is not that there's pressure to continue education; it's that nobody prepares students for the financial decisions they're going to have to make in order to do so. >

I am saying the issue is that kids are not prepared, and given we agree that financial literacy is not commonly taught in schools I’m not the only one >

I feel like we're talking past each other. I never claimed you were the only one or that financial literacy is commonly taught. I'm asking you to mentally separate the idea of college from how it's paid for and to consider that college itself isn't the problem, but rather, that young people applying to college aren't properly prepared to evaluate the financial aspects.
This is r/changemyview. Your stated view, summarized, is: It is cruel and predatory that we as a society pressure 18 year olds to go straight to college after high school... because their decision making faculties are not yet fully developed.
I am respectfully trying to change your view by stating a counterpoint that it's not really any inherent problem with 18 year-old brains, but rather, it's about a lack of prior education. We allow 18 year-olds to drive and serve in the military, but only after properly educating them. If we failed to educate them and just handed them the keys or a weapon, things would go poorly, which is what you're complaining about with college. Students who take on high levels of debt have not been properly educated on that.
Therefore, I don't believe it's "cruel or predatory" to encourage 18 year olds to go straight to college after high school. They have sufficient brain development. However, in the cases where doing so involves taking on high levels of debt (it doesn't for everyone) and we haven't properly educated them beforehand on financial matters, then those are the societal failures at play. The problem is not the encouragement to further one's education. We're just not preparing people for one aspect of it.
Does this change your view at all? >

Okay, I understand what you are saying. I find it difficult to mentally separate the idea of payment for college and the lack of education in financial literacy because I think they are both wrong. However, I think the issue of the lacking education in financial literacy is also a systemic issue as our public schools fail to teach the subject to students >


the issue of the lacking education in financial literacy is also a systemic issue as our public schools fail to teach the subject to students

While I agree, the solution is to address that failure, not to discourage students from going to college.
I'd also like to point out that there are a lot of people who don't face these issues, such as those who: live in places where college is free or heavily subsidized, go to low-cost community colleges, come from families wealthy enough to pay for college, and most importantly, learned financial literacy somehow (most likely from their families).
If we as a society discouraged everyone from going to college simply because some of them (even the majority) weren't properly prepared, we'd be doing damage to the society as a whole. And if we disallowed students who aren't in those categories from taking on high debt, we'd be amplifiying their disadvantage, because then only the fortunate students described above would have access to higher education. >

Funny, bud. I am a full time college student but I do wish I had better understood what I was getting myself into so I could have considered other education options, taken my prereqs at community college, and generally just have been better educated in personal finance so that I would have had better direction >

What do you consider the downsides of you going to college?
I didn't go to university (what we call college here) so I have done the alternative that you're suggesting and I'm interested in hearing your opinion >

I’m going to post a longer response but I generally think 18 year old are not well equipped to make the most out of their college experience, which does not make it its money’s worth >

An 18yo is a legal adult (I assume you're talking about the USA). They're denied access to a handful of vices, but otherwise have the full suite of legal rights and responsibilities of a 45yo. It seems weird to think that college or even student loans are more demanding or harder to understand than a full-time job and a mortgage.
The reason young people are encouraged to go to college is because it is generally a very good financial investment and offers a fairly gentle transition into adult life. It's a fairly low risk option with great potential upsides. >

Perhaps the discussion should be about asking an 18 year old to borrow large amounts of money.   
For much of the developed world, going to college after high school is about studying, not taking on a lifetime debt. >

It’s the same in the USA; OP’s example of $300K of debt is a ridiculous exception to the norm.  Average USA student debt at graduation is $29K.  He’s off by an order of magnitude. >

r/USdefaultism ? >


lives paying back up to 300k in student loans.

Just fix this problem. It doesn't seem like a smart idea of individuals to profit off the improved education of your population. >

The cruel and predatory thing is that universities charge so dang much for tuition. The cost of the issue, not encouraging kids to seek higher education. >

It’s often not the tuition that raises the sticker price of college.  Room, Board, and fees are what have skyrocketed. >

I think it’s all of the above, but the point stands regardless. >

100%.  Teenagers need to do the ROI on college.  If you’re spending $100k on a degree that will start you at $35k a year, that is a bad investment. >

I'd argue it's cruel and predatory that we as a society (if we're talking about the US, or other countries that don't have a more socialized model), charge money for education, period.
The only reason this above is a problem, is because we put a financial hurdle on something which we should be encouraging. After all, an older adult has far more things to worry about societally, and our society has not developed in such a way as to be optimally efficient towards self-betterment to the point where we truly enable people to better themselves, as that would require time, money, and resources that we generally impose upon the individual. (IE: It'd be tough for a 30 year old to learn from a college while having to maintain a modest US lifestyle, complete with car, apartment, food, utilities, and the job required to maintain all that.) 
When you've given up that lower education is somewhat meaningless, and oftentimes college is where the bulk of potential 'better jobs' come from, its as if you're being charged for future potential... without any guarantee that said future potential is ever actually seen. What if I get into being a solar or wind turbine technician, but some sweeping reactionary policymaking decides we're going back to oil and gas and coal again? What if I spend time learning about EV drivetrains, and then the market crashes and everyone stops making them? What if I get into art degrees and hone my skills, but then an AI script all but takes over any commercial viability my degree had? (Or accounting? Or for CT technician?)  
College works as it does because that further education is happening generally before a lot of these things have taken hold, and in ages past, college tuition was far cheaper, making it far easier for someone to potentially be able to pay for all the above and also afford tuition. In some places, State colleges were even free.
I don't disagree that the way we have our system set up now is bad, but I'd argue its less because of college or higher education itself being a bad thing, and more about the ways in which we've created systems designed to extract wealth from people. Higher education should be a thing we encourage people to get into, we should absolutely want people to be able to access tools that enable them to become things we need for a healthier society. Putting large financial hurdles in front of them should be an obvious sign of unsustainability, and doing things like trying to make those debts stick through bankruptcy should be a clear sign of predatory behavior.  
So if you're arguing for an easier accessibility to college education, without all the predatory claws of lenders and the greed of private institutions that're already sitting on multi-billion dollar trusts still having tuitions, then I guess I'm not really challenging your view enough. If the argument is that we shouldn't be pushing people into college period, though, then I'd be pushing back that it's our current perversion of higher education to be just another business in the US that's the problem. There's plenty of models in other countries that show we can  have far more affordable colleges, or even free colleges to students, that do not require such financial commitment. In those countries, it isn't cruel and predatory, because they don't have the same broken jank that a system like the US one does. >

Yes yes yes! Not against education I’m against the greed >

It's pretty nuts that in this day and age there are some countries so authoritarian that 18 year olds can't drink or smoke. It's also pretty nuts that there are some places where colleges aren't free at the point of entry, given the disastrous effects we know that has on social mobility.
The thing is we haven't really worked out what 18 year olds should be doing. They've finished school but because of automation there's not the unskilled labour there was and so for work we need trained and motivated 25 year olds not skilless 18 year olds. As for how we get trained and motivated 25 year olds, it's some combination of further education and apprenticeship and we haven't at all worked out the details yet and even if we did it probably wouldn't take 7 years. And what we've really not worked out at all is the equal opportunities bit where people of all backgrounds can end up with the skills to do the thing they're motivated to do.
So that's the medium/long term challenge. But until we sort that out if you can afford to go college is the least worst alternative. It's the closest thing we've got to a clearing house for helping people find the thing that motivates them and getting them on the path go getting skilled up in that field.
Personally? I'd bring back national service, minus the military bits. 2 years from 18-20 for teens to do public works in exchange for a pittance and so earn their free college from the state, and in the meantime grow up a bit and learn how to manage a budget and live the other side of the country from mum and dad (and take all the drugs and fuck everybody they meet). Then in exchange for that you get 3 years free tertiary education from 20-23 by which time you've got some idea what you're interested in and you've sown your wild oats and are ready to go to lectures. Tertiary can be vocational or academic according to your interest. And then 23-25 you're shuffled in to some form of master apprenticeship/paid internship programme. >

Great point! >

Well one big difference is that it isn't illegal to not go to college, it is just what is recommended. Alcohol and those other scenarios are actually illegal >

Why are you focusing on the financial impact and not the true source of the issue? There shouldn't be a significant financial impact to the student.
Continuing education after high school is undeniably the best time to do so developmentally. A person's brain only becomes less malleable or able to absorb and retain information as they age. 
If we removed the idea of student debt from the picture would tertiary education be either cruel or predatory? In many countries this is already the case. >

While I understand the source of the financial impact on the student, there isn’t really anything we can do that will change that in the near future >

Sure there is, we can lobby our representatives for stronger financial support for students attending tertiary institutions of learning. 
Deflecting from the source of financial impact and placing it on people pressuring 18-year-olds into accruing student debt is defeatism, especially when the stats on median income support tertiary education being a net benefit for those students even factoring in significant accrual of student debt.
Those people doing the "cruel and predatory" pressuring are being rational. It is on median worth it to go to college in America and it's not even close. >

Maybe just make college affordable instead of encouraging them to wait until a period where they're unlikely to ever be able to devote their full attention to higher education. >

Well when is it that college will be affordable? Never, lmao >

There are countries outside the us where college is affordable though. >

First off, college is too expensive. Obviously, that is the main concern. It shouldn’t require massive loans for anyone.  
Secondly, as parents who see and are aware of the current higher-education shitshow, it is our responsibility to educate and prepare our kids. I have an 11 year old and she already knows college is unaffordable for us, and that she most likely will need to go to tech school for a while if she chooses that path. My kids are close in age and I try to teach them “team ideas” like they may want to share an apartment, and that’s probably a good idea since they already split chores and space in our home now. I also have a system where if they want something big, they can get a “loan” from me where they do chores to pay me back. If they don’t do them, they get charged a penalty. I clean houses and I’m teaching them how to do that on the side as well (I make about $40/hr). 
None of this is ideal, but we have to do the best we can. >

College is a good thing. Drinking and smoking aren't. It's like saying, "It's cruel to force kids to eat vegetables even though they can't do heroine." Yes, college is expensive, but the average college grad makes about a million more dollars on their life than someone who just went to high school. >

It’s better than pointing I gun at them.  I had a tendency to do that before cellphones.  It always got their attention and they ended up driving much nicer. >

What about countries that have free access to university? >

You didn't mention which society- there are several countries where you do not need to pay excessive loans for higher education.
Additionally, there are many schools in the United States which are more affordable. Many community colleges only cost a few thousand dollars per semester. This is still a substantial amount, but I think 10-20k in loans is far less cruel or predatory than 300 thousand dollars. The majority of public schools are going to be in 40-60k. Additionally, the majority of schools do not require you to pay for all four to six years in advance, it's semester by semester. So even at the more expensive state schools, the 18-year old adult is signing for 5-6k. I think this is a reasonable amount of money to be responsible for at that age.
I would also argue that to a certain extent, 18 year old adults are mentally capable of understanding and signing contracts. The fact that society does not allow them to drink/smoke/rent a car doesn't have anything to do with their actual mental capabilities. >

In many of Asian and European countries, college education is funded by the governments and is not as atrocious as here in the US. Arguably, continuing education whilst young has lots of benefits because it's well understood that learning declines as we age. >

Papa said education is the only thing where money isn't wasted. Even if you owe $$$k, the critical thinking it leaves you is exponentially worthy if used properly. Critical thinking does not have to stay within the bounds of your profession. >

Counterpoint: that only applies in the US.
In many other countries in the world where education is free and/or far more accessible it makes perfect sense. 
Your brain is better equipped to learn when you’re young. it’s a way to get into professions that you couldn’t start without studying. And there aren’t other life stresses like kids and careers in the way (usually). Studying young makes perfect sense. >

That is only in a few countries. In Argentina not only you gain the right(not the obligation yet) to vote at 16 you can drink and smoke at 18, you also gain the obligation to vote at 18 (yes, is mandatory to vote, if you dont you have to pay a small fine).
To add college is free so its a no brainer to go to college and start your degree.
Another reason to do college that fast its because its a bit easier to study if you come directly from high school. The pandemic made it harder for me to study because I lost the routine of going to class and the time spent there.