I recently read that it costs more for the federal government to administer the student loan program (and carry the money) than it would cost to just give the money away. Isn't that amazing? It's a combination of the cost of carrying the huge debt for a long time with little or no interest accrual, the long term for repayment and, as usual, the massive federal administrative machine necessary to evaluate, monitor and track people and payments.
Here's my idea: Let's use that money to provide free in-state college education for anybody who graduates high school with a "B" average, maintains at least a "B" average through college, and graduates in four years. We'd keep more of our best students in state, we'd provide stable funding for our universities, and we'd keep more of our Oregon money in Oregon. Most importantly, our kids would be getting out of college without a crippling debt-load. Today it's common for students graduating in medicine/law/engineering/architecture, etc to have student loan burdens of $60,000 to well over $100,000 - and that's a terrible burden that prevents them from taking low-paying government jobs and jobs in rural areas. We'd ALL be better off if we could give them a leg up and keep them near home.
Here's the biggest thing: Look what first-class, cheap education did for California from the 60s through the 80s. Californians built an incredible education system that was cheap - and I believe it had a lot to do with California becoming an anormous economic power in the decades that followed.
Our public education in Oregon is expensive and mediocre. We were recently told that it's going to cost us the same to send our kids to Ivy League as it would cost to send them to UO or OSU, because our schools have become so expensive, and the Ivy league schools will pay the difference once the "parental obligation" is met . (So our total required contribution is almost the same.) That sure wasn't the case when I went to UO, but then in-state tuition then was only about $250 per term ;-)
