Quote:

#6 is the most difficult to prove. If we were to allow the argument of the social contract, then we have a generation of people who were promised that if they obtained a degree they would obtain good and gainful employment; while the employer-employee relationship certainly is fiduciary in nature, one could argue that the promise of employment is not and, furthermore, that the advice and instruction of society did not rise to "promise" or "contract" (even verbal)... so that is all arguable. -- HOWEVER, what is not arguable is that there was a literal fiduciary relationship between the university and the student, and between the lender and the student also. As I showed above, given the PR/marketing and pushing of student-loans by and on campuses, it is also arguable that there is a fiduciary relationship between the lenders and the universities (certainly if you consider the student as their medium of exchange).

EXCEPT.... the Federal Government (since Obama) issued the loans, not the University.

But it is the University that has the fiduciary responsibility -- not the federal government. There is no fiduciary responsibility between a lender and a borrower except to clearly disclose terms, and that responsibility was met.

Thus the question to be decided at the (legal) bar is this:

Did the university make representations as to the marketability and value of said degree which was materially false and misleading, and without which said student would not have entered into the agreement?

That's an individual case of fact; in some cases I bet its yes, but not in ALL cases. Further, the university has wildly-superior data to the student in that they have handed out THOUSANDS of said degrees and they know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what attributes must be present (or absent) in a given student to lead to them succeeding and what sort of renumeration they get from employment as a result of said degree.

To the extent the university through either explicit action including admitting students they either knew or should have known did not have the chops to compete in the field, or to the extent they priced their product when the money was borrowed beyond the reasonably-expected carrying capacity of a student with said degree you can get them as to fraud -- and thus force the UNIVERSITY to eat the loan.

Not the government, and its not forgiven -- the University is forced, if it can be proved, to disgorge it.

----------