Student money is not always used to benefit the college or the students

The argument

When students pay their student loan debt most people would assume that money goes to the schools but that's not what's happening. Most loans are usually federal student loans done through the government. The loan effectively pays the sum of what a student would owe the college in full, thus creating the debt. The school has already received the money it needs for that student to attend so it's not usually the school a person is indebted to but the government. This means that the school does not suddenly lack money or funding because of any one person who can't pay. The problem is that schools struggle to allocate the money in ways that would benefit the campus or the students. While the monetary side of things might be taken care of the students have now been placed in their care. Upkeep of the campus and grounds, repairs, staff payments from professors to janitors, the cost of school supplies and needed equipment to teach classes. All of this continues to add up along with utilities, food, and resources for the students to have access to. What people seem to not realize is that students aren't the only ones who receive federal aid but schools do too. Aid, grants, and even donations to help keep the entire school up and running. The setup and system currently in place is not enough if schools have to incur debt themselves to function. It's the scale of things which is the problem because extra money does not usually mean it can go back to the students. 30,000 sounds like a lot, enough to pay off a single students debt, and that's the very problem. One student when those attending number in the thousands to tens of thousands. Getting rid of student loan debt might change the system and how things function but at this point in time it's apparent that we need this change.

Premises

Counter-arguments

What people underestimate when it comes to running an entire college is the sheer cost of keeping everything going. It's not just paychecks to the professors but the staff. It's not just the buildings upkeep but the utility bills of all the campus building. It starts to add up into a very large, expensive sum. Schools, while they're there to teach their students and benefit them also have to bring in new students, new knowledge. There's recruitment to worry about and being able to provide for their students, not just for disabilities but even dietary restrictions. Schools are an institute. A giant organization that takes countless of people to keep running and train the new recruits. Public or private they almost always need money. Part of the reason why students might feel like they aren't getting everything they could from what they've paid is because of the student body. They are one student out of hundreds on campus or maybe even out of tens of thousands. That then brings up the problem of favoritism. Leftover money is much different than scholarships or grants that can be given to students who are applicable for aid or have won the grant. This money can't just go back to the students because if the amount returned would be miniscule. Leftover money is usually allocated to fund something else on the campus like the clubs or it's used to entertain the students. Things like comedians or bands coming to perform on campus, paid for with that leftover money. While students would no doubt prefer having it given to them, schools can't just return the money because it leaves the question of who should they give it to and as much as every student would like to say themselves it's much less complicated for the schools to plan something for all the students instead of surprising only a few.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Identifying the government rather than the school as the creditor establishes who is owed, not that the money was misspent — and who holds a loan is in itself no reason to cancel it, which is the conclusion the argument reaches for. [Rejecting P2] Struggling to allocate funds and having enough of them are different claims, and the counter sets out where the sums go: staff across the institution, utilities on every building, recruitment, accessibility and dietary provision. That a school cannot spend freely is evidence of cost rather than of misallocation. [Rejecting P3] The scale point cuts the other way. Precisely because one balance is small against a student body of thousands, money cannot be returned individually without arbitrariness, which is why it is spent on provision shared by everyone.