Well, I did go to college in the US, and I had to have my financial package hammered out well before starting college. This included approving and automating the transfer of funds from student loans. Money had already been transfered by the time I started college. I think this is true of the overwhelming majority of Americans who go to college. Co-signing on a loan wouldn't change this. The money needs to be paid. And that's the problem with the plot so far. We're just told that the problem is that the dad co-signed a loan. That's not really enough to make this existential problem.
To be clear, the situation that credit.org seems to be talking about in the article you linked is if a student takes out non-standard loans to pay for things other than tuition, but doesn't use it to pay for those things, and instead invests the money as a low-interest loan. This doesn't really apply to not paying tuitition, because you have to pay tuition to keep going to school. They mention that student loans generally pay for things like tuition, in addition to other things, but they don't explain how the situation they're talking about could ever apply to a loan that's used for tuition.
Also, this article states that it is written in response to concerns about news reports that suggest some students are doing something shady. This smells very much like similar "news stories" done by Fox News that completely misrepresented the actions of Somali immigrant daycare providers that were compeltely debunked by the state's investigation. That hasn't stopped Fox News as reporting these allegations as true, or the Republican politicians as calling these allegations true to this day. So I would heavily caution the validity of these supposed reports.
Edit: And to be clear, the fact that this plot flies in the face of most American's college experience with loans is why there's a problem with suspension of disbelief here. Just saying that the father co-signed a loan really isn't enough.
Last edited:
