Ms. Kristof offers a cautionary example of an individual who attends the University of Virginia and then the California Western School of Law. He marries a fellow law student, and reportedly they are now both in jobs earning six-figure incomes. Happy ending, right? Not according to this account.  You see, they are saddled with a combined $194,000 in education related debt at 12% interest (why they are paying 12% on student loans is a bit of a mystery, but let's take the number on faith).  The financial pressure has been so severe that it has resulted in a divorce, which we are expected to blame on the terrible advisors in college and law school who got them into this financial purgatory.

Why am I not moved by their plight? Because it doesn't add up to economic hardship. While I encourage my readers to borrow only what they need to complete their education, and to prefer more affordable options over comparable but higher priced schools, and this couple appears to have been a bit too willing to borrow, they did not end up in a bad place.  Consider what they have to pay if they have a $194,000 ten year debt at 12%.  That amounts to $33,000 per year in loan payments.  Now consider what we know about their incomes.  They are earning at least $200,000 between them, with which they ought to be able to make their loan payments and still be better off than if they had both skipped college and law school.  Taking figures from the article itself about average earnings of high school and college graduates [$31,600 and $57,500 respectively], and subtracting them from the minimum "six-figure income" of $100,000 leaves us concluding that each of them is making at least $68,400 more than s/he would expect to have made without any post-secondary education, and $42,500 more than each would likely have been making if s/he had foregone law school.  Multiply that by 2, and subtract the $33,000 in loan payments, and they are still much better off financially.