comment: >
  
  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.
context: 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 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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Worth noting that’s debt and not total spending, which is more like $100,000 but even still the return is good.
  But for the argument OP presents, I think the more key argument is the “pressure” angle, not the cost benefit analysis.
  The question is whether it’s fair to have broad social pressure to go to college, and by contrast broad social stigma to choose to not?
  Even still it might be the correct idea barring broad economic changes.  A college degree still on average leads to better career paths and life outcomes. >
  
  
  Worth noting that’s debt and not total spending, which is more like $100,000 but even still the return is good.
  
  There's far more to the college equation than just the raw dollars, but on that specific point I'm actually wondering if it is actually a good return.
  If you put that $100,000 into an index fund at 22 years old, it would be worth approximately $2 million by the time you retire. 
  If the average college graduate earns only $0.9 million more over their career, it would seem the raw investment potential actually points away from college. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  As another commenter posted, the average school loan doesn't even hit 30k per person.
  I don't think this is even necessarily a matter of financial literacy, though I do agree Highschools should focus a lot more on it. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  The opportunity cost for college is at its lowest point right out of high school. That is the main reason to go then. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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? >
  
  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. 
  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 harder as you age. >
  
  Because if they don't go immediately they likely will never go.  
  Which for many wouldn't be a bad thing. >
  
  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." >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  I think that it is cruel and predatory that 18 year olds without money and prospects are pushed into joining the military >
  
  I disagree. I know someone who essentially was on the path to nowhere and the military put him back on track and helped him develop a sense of worth. The military gives a chance for someone who came from 0 means to have a chance to break the cycle.  It's definitely not for everyone, but the military can be a great option, especially for the educational incentives along with the training. A lot of people who've served and got a skill that transfers into the private sector are sought after and have very successful careers. 
  Military service is honorable, but the campaigns brought about by some of our politicians who have their own agendas may not be. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 having a hard time financially in their 30s. >
  
  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.