Joe Biden cancelled student debt. 

Not all of it. $10,000 in federal loans per person for people who earn less than $125,000 a year. Call it an exercise in fairness or a cynical political play… either way, it won’t be happening here.  

And nor should it. This might surprise you - it’s certainly a different position to the one I held when I racked up my own student loan, constantly comparing my own tertiary fees to those of my parents’ generation – but I don’t think university should be free and I don’t think we should cancel student loan debt.  

For the individual, a university education is an investment. Although it’s by no means true for everyone, you are still likelier to earn more money if you have a university education than if you don’t.  

You might rightly argue that an educated population benefits more than the individual. Society is the winner. And you’re right. But the government already massively subsidises tertiary education. As expensive as it is, it would be unfair to those who’ve chosen different professional paths – especially workers in blue collar jobs – if we expected them to fully fund the education of people who will likely soon earn more than them.  

For the most part, New Zealand strikes a good balance. Our student loan scheme gives most people access to education whilst not burdening them with interest. By international standards, the scheme is generous. I have friends who borrowed the maximum weekly living costs for the years they were at university, fastidiously tucking away all of it away in savings accounts, who eventually used that student loan money as an interest-free deposit on a house. There aren’t many loan schemes that will allow you to do that!  

I say this as someone who paid off his loan, himself. I know I’m very fortunate, but so often this debate is defined by individual anecdotes.  

Fifteen years ago, I owed 25 or 30 grand. Fortunately, my education led me directly to a profession in which I earned enough money to live with dignity, even as I paid off my debt. That might not have been the case if I hadn’t done a degree.  

But my own experience taught me we can do a much better job of helping young people understand the ramifications of debt. I think too many people go to university too young. They default to studying something they aren’t very interested in only to wake up a few years later with tens-of-thousands of dollars owing.  I think we can do a much better job of advocating for vocational training and careers in the trades. For the right person at the right time, tertiary education is fantastic. But even with a relatively generous student loan scheme, it can still be a debt trap. 

If we’re to change anything about university fees, I’d suggest bolder initiatives to address professional shortages in our society. Back in the 1980s, my parents only chose to settle in New Zealand because trainee teachers here received a stipend, and in Australia they didn’t. I’m broadly supportive of further subsidising fees or reducing debt for selected qualifications, if it means we directly bolster a chronically understaffed public workforce.  

Nursing? Mental health? Sure.  

Accounting and Public Relations? No thanks.  

One last point: Instead of cancelling student debt, we should be doing a much better job of addressing the immediate living concerns of university students, many of whom are among the poorest people in our society. We are already heavily subsidising their studies – as we should – so why do we accept that so many students are eking out life after housing costs on $50 or $100 a week? Poverty is not a right of passage.  I think there’s a good argument student allowances and living costs should be increased.   

University shouldn’t be free for everyone. We shouldn’t cancel all student loan debt. But students also shouldn’t be living in poverty. Instead of following Joe Biden’s move, we’d be much better to address students’ immediate concerns, so if our young people do choose university, they have the best chance to succeed in their studies.