I don't agree that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for some 18-year-old to have fun for four years. Do whatever you want, but don't expect others to pay for you.
I would disagree here. If you look at this solely from the perspective of someone screwing around in the public dollar sure, it's easy to say screw that. If however you instead look at it like: "This person tried this, really didn't like it, is not good at it, and probably shouldn't do it", why should we then force them into a field they can't generate value in -or- damn them to a lifetime of wage slavery to pay for the schooling they can't use?
In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
>In my mind, college exists to prepare a pupil for a given field and if said pupil for any number of reasons cannot do that upon exiting that institution, why should they pay for it?
Because that was the agreement they made with the institution.
Either way someone is paying for it, it can be the person who got the (partial) education, or it can be someone\s that happens to live in the same state as the person who got the education.
Even if it doesn't make sense to you that people who fail their studies should pay their debts to their schools, it makes even less sense that you would transfer that debt from the pupil to someone who was neither partner to the decision to undertake studies nor a beneficiary of pupil's studies.
