Student debt is a symptom of a serious problem: blocked opportunity for education beyond high school. While not a cure-all, education is a strong intervention that improves the lives of nearly all who receive it. A highly educated populace is necessary for a strong democracy, economy, and society. While private returns to individuals also accompany education, the substantial public returns are the primary justification for government investment. When people seek, but cannot afford, further education they are often pushed into sub-optimal financial decisions, including taking out student loans. Given evident racial disparities in borrowing, some refer to this process as predatory inclusion— loans are offered on terms that limit or eliminate their long-term benefits (Seamster & Charron-Chenier, 2017). Against their better judgment, many students are taking out loans for college not because they are certain of the economic payoff, but because they are sure that their life chances, and those of their families, will suffer if they do not (Goldrick-Rab, 2016). The government imposes substantial penalties on them, including administrative burdens, for this constrained choice (Herd & Moynihan, 2018). When they leave college with debt, many without a degree, people start from behind—enjoying less financial stability and experiencing more stress than prior generations. This, in turn, makes them question the value of education, both for themselves and for others. The intergenerational consequences of that shift in valuation of a critical public good—education—is perhaps the most serious consequence of college unaffordability and resulting debt. But it is often overlooked in analyses framing students as economic subjects rather than citizens (Nissen, 2019). Any solution should recognize that education at all levels is a public good and align the price of education with that value. When delivering support, administrative burden should be shifted from the individual to the state, where it belongs. We argue that this means making public higher education tuition-free and restoring broad cross-class public interest in also making it high-quality. We further contend that debt forgiveness, whether partial or full, is necessary in order to rectify past mistakes and restore well-being and faith in education among those who borrowed.

中文翻译：

---

学生债务有什么问题？

学生债务是一个严重问题的征兆：高中毕业后接受教育的机会受阻。虽然不是万灵药，但教育是一种强有力的干预措施，可以改善几乎所有接受教育的人的生活。一个受过高等教育的民众是强大的民主、经济和社会所必需的。虽然个人的私人回报也伴随着教育，但可观的公共回报是政府投资的主要理由。当人们寻求但负担不起继续教育时，他们通常会被迫做出次优的财务决策，包括申请学生贷款。鉴于借贷方面存在明显的种族差异，一些人将这一过程称为掠夺性包容——贷款的条款限制或消除了其长期利益（Seamster & Charron-Chenier，2017 年）。反对他们更好的判断，许多学生贷款上大学并不是因为他们确定经济回报，而是因为他们确信如果不这样做，他们和家人的生活机会将受到影响（Goldrick-Rab，2016）。对于这种受限制的选择，政府对他们施加了大量惩罚，包括行政负担（Herd & Moynihan，2018 年）。当他们背负债务离开大学时，许多人没有学位，他们从后面开始——与前几代人相比，他们享受的财务稳定性更少，压力更大。这反过来又使他们质疑教育对自己和他人的价值。对关键公共物品——教育——的估值转变的代际后果可能是大学负担不起和由此产生的债务的最严重后果。但在将学生视为经济主体而非公民的分析中，这一点常常被忽视（Nissen，2019 年）。任何解决方案都应认识到各级教育是一种公共产品，并使教育价格与该价值保持一致。在提供支持时，行政负担应从个人转移到它所属的国家。我们认为，这意味着公立高等教育免收学费，并恢复广泛的跨阶级公众兴趣，使其高质量。我们进一步认为，为了纠正过去的错误并恢复借款人的福祉和对教育的信心，必须免除部分或全部债务。任何解决方案都应认识到各级教育是一种公共产品，并使教育价格与该价值保持一致。在提供支持时，行政负担应从个人转移到它所属的国家。我们认为，这意味着公立高等教育免收学费，并恢复广泛的跨阶级公众兴趣，使其高质量。我们进一步认为，为了纠正过去的错误并恢复借款人的福祉和对教育的信心，必须免除部分或全部债务。任何解决方案都应认识到各级教育是一种公共产品，并使教育价格与该价值保持一致。在提供支持时，行政负担应从个人转移到它所属的国家。我们认为，这意味着公立高等教育免收学费，并恢复广泛的跨阶级公众兴趣，使其高质量。我们进一步认为，为了纠正过去的错误并恢复借款人的福祉和对教育的信心，必须免除部分或全部债务。我们认为，这意味着公立高等教育免收学费，并恢复广泛的跨阶级公众兴趣，使其高质量。我们进一步认为，为了纠正过去的错误并恢复借款人的福祉和对教育的信心，必须免除部分或全部债务。我们认为，这意味着公立高等教育免收学费，并恢复广泛的跨阶级公众兴趣，使其高质量。我们进一步认为，为了纠正过去的错误并恢复借款人的福祉和对教育的信心，必须免除部分或全部债务。