The American student debt system is a forty-year experiment in financing higher education through private debt. The experiment has produced results that those who designed it did not anticipate and that the governance system has struggled to address.
How the Architecture Was Built
The student loan system — the federal and private lending infrastructure through which Americans finance higher education — was built on the premise that the returns to higher education were sufficient to justify the debt that financing it required. This premise was reasonable when tuition costs were modest, when the labour market premium for college degrees was large relative to those costs, and when the debt-financed education system was primarily serving students from middle-income families for whom the debt was manageable relative to their expected earnings. It became progressively less reasonable as tuition costs rose faster than wages, as the distribution of degree returns became more unequal, and as the debt loads required to finance education at current tuition levels exceeded what the income trajectories of many degree holders could service.
The current student debt landscape — over 1.7 trillion dollars in outstanding student loans, default rates that reflect the mismatch between debt loads and earnings for a significant share of borrowers, and the income-contingent repayment systems that manage but do not resolve the underlying mismatch — is the accumulated consequence of four decades of tuition increases, stagnant family incomes for the bottom two-thirds of the distribution, and a governance system that increased lending limits in response to rising tuition rather than addressing the tuition increases themselves.
The student debt architecture is the governance system's choice to socialise the cost of higher education's credential inflation through private debt rather than public subsidy. The choice produced a system that is efficient for the borrowers whose degree returns are high and destructive for the borrowers whose degree returns are insufficient to service the debt the credential required. Changing it requires the political will to make a different choice about who bears the cost of higher education — which is a distributional choice, not a technical one.
Discussion