comment: >
  
  
  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.
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.