To simultaneously claim that your education did not properly prepare you for a career, and then advocate strategically minimizing your income (from said career) to avoid paying for that education, shows that the article is an attempt to rationalize this individual’s employment choices, rather than explain any kind of systemic failure.

Is education too expensive? Probably. But the author slays his own argument when he implies that, with different life choices, he could earn more. I don’t mean to say there are not people sold a false bill of goods by our educational system. There are CNAs, court reporters, business administration, and yes, liberal arts degree holders all over the country legitimately unable to find employment that makes paying off their loans feasible. However, that does not appear to be the case here. Instead, this author seems to think that his choice to pursue low-paying work somehow retroactively invalidates both his education and the contracts he signed to pay for it. It is off-putting to say the least, especially to those of us who are paying our loans to the actual best of our ability.