I say this as an attorney with a significant bankruptcy practice: I think we're getting close to the tipping point. The impact of medical bills on personal bankruptcies was one of the primary political drivers of the healthcare law, and my experince has been that student loans are an even greater burden on those struggling financially. When a lot of people lose a job and can't find something quick, they'll decide to go back to school. That's great in theory--a new degree/skill set should open up job opportunities and/or higher pay, so those extra loans supplementing any unemployment benefits don't seem like a huge deal. Except then you get out of school, still can't find a job, and have to start making payments on the loans. Cash in is down, cash out is up. Pretty soon, bankruptcy is the only thing keeping the debt collectors at bay.

The irony that it is very difficult to knock out student loans via bankruptcy. If someone called me up and said, "C Money, you tell us how to reform the student loan industry. Whatever you say, that's what is going to happen," that's my answer. Bankruptcy is a reset button for just about every stupid financial decision you can make, except student loans. But politically, it just isn't going to happen. I can potentially see something similar to the new healthcare structure: everyone must get some form of higher degree (be it a bachelors or a technical degree), with the thought that if more people are in the system, per student costs can be reduced.  There are a lot of constiuency groups that would love mandatory higher ed. But more likely, we'll just see more federal loans being made at lower rates, combined with easier paths to loan forgiveness, essentially shifting costs from consumer to taxpayer. Higher ed essentially will become an entitlement like Social Security and Medicare.

And cue the unintended consequences of Financial Aid treatise.

I could be wrong, but I suspect its more that writing them off at a greatly accelerated rate would count as a HUGE expenditure by the CBO

OU should have embraced the community college partnerships much sooner than what they did. In Virginia its difficult to get into a public university out of High School (at least a 3.2) but a student completing a 2 year program can gain admission to any public university in the state upon graduation. It can keep the costs down for students but it also allows UVA and VT to get by on smaller enrollments with higher ACT scores that graduate and backfilling with more mature students from the community college ranks. Smaller enrollments are also more appealing to students choosing between a public and private school. A major reason why I picked Ohio was it only had 18,000 students at the time. The school could have stayed at 15,000 students as it was in the 80's with a more efficient yield. Most of the new dorm construction wouldn't have been necessary yet while the private donations would have been no smaller over the last 20 years. Another point is that in a crowded marketplace to make a school attractive there has to be distinctive programs like Scrips and the Osteopathic College. The last couple decades Ohio's tried to be an everything school and because of it the experience is becoming generic. Its like let's cash in on an nursing program! Traditional Liberal Arts at the school has been largely brushed aside in importance and that is what is needed to compete with the top tier institutions for students. The University would be better to be running a sustainable farming graduate program out of the The Plains making a direct impact on the community. Instead of competing for private school students the school wants to compete with Wright State for nurses. A better idea is 15,000 students (12,000) undergrad with a pricing tier competitive with the lower range private schools (20,000) and pay faculty well in the Arts and Sciences. The school could have demolished South Green and turned it into the largest student garden in the country.