I was just asking for clarification about brain development and what that means in practical terms. I've never considered that and am curious how that would impact policy as mentioned by @StarBright . I didn't argue stopping education. I was asking since college is "sold" to kids (and parents!) as an experience first - to explore delaying or other options. I don't think it's 4 year university with loans up to your eyeballs or nothing when you're 18. I certainly thought so at one time and still took the plunge. I don't think the particular policy that is the subject of this thread is the best way to handle this issue.
I mean, I certainly wasn't prepared for the financial impact of going to university (nor were my parents) and just borrowed for the whole schmear. I/we were ignorant at the time but even still knew this would have to be paid back "someday". In fact this ignorance is what pushed me later on to be interested in personal finance as I didn't want my future adult self to be as clueless about retirement and other finance matters as I was when I entered college (or for any future kids to be in the dark as well). My parents' brains were completely developed, perhaps mine wasn't but we were both bad with the time value of money and opportunity costs involved. I'm still paying my loans back and am against any type of largescale student loan forgiveness (especially one coming from an exec order). While this is just my opinion, I (and my parents) should've known better. I am against it for multiple reasons but that doesn't mean I'm against other policies, ways of changing the system, expectations, teenage personal finance planning becoming the norm in public schools, counseling, parental guidance, allocation of public funds, how loans are distributed, interest rates, etc. This is a serious issue and while I personally think I should've known better, there are myriad ways to address it rather than a one-time Band-Aid that will have to be repeatedly applied on the taxpayer's dime. I just think the specific subject of this topic would be bad policy. By the results of the poll, nearly 3/5 agree with that.
So as therethere just mentioned, driving is actually a place where public policy has changed based on neuroscience. 20 years ago I could drive anywhere I wanted with a car full of friends as soon as I was 16. I also had four friends in high school that died in car crashes. Turns out teenage brains don't assess risk like older brains. Now there are much greater restrictions on teenage drivers.
There are legal implications such as how to treat adolescents when it comes to things like drugs, alcohol, petty theft, and more serious crimes as well: juvenile crime policy in general. You can't drink till you're 21, but you can be charged as an adult in most states when you are 14. But the research can also impact laws regarding the statutory age at which an adolescent can reasonably make decisions about their own health and welfare -including sex. Confoundingly, age of consent laws are frequently based on mental but not chronological age.
Beyond setting law, it can also be useful for crafting public messaging and incentives around risk taking activities.
As slappy mentioned, the military is obviously another area where neuroscience on brain development could be helpful. Beyond the question of whether or not 18 years should allowed/encouraged to enlist - how does combat affect a still developing brain? Should younger enlistees be prohibited from certain positions or missions?
Heck - how does football affect a still developing brain?
I really wanted to highlight chemistk's excellent point because there have been a ton of people on this thread who are like "17 year olds know what they are getting into." - and
they actually don't. Obviously there are outliers - but in general you can present risk and reward info to a 17 year old and a 25 year old and they will not process it the same way. Really simply put, in the teenager the part of the brain that yells "this is a risk!!" gets the volume turned way down, and the part that says "this could be great!" is louder.
I think there are all sorts of ways we could harness that developmental period in a way that is good for everyone; specifically I am thinking about something like a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps (which was originally for 18-25 year olds!) - but there would have to be political will for it. And there obviously isn't because we're talking about Biden using an EO to forgive student loan debt. There isn't a unified political will on anything regarding education in our country.
Gah- sorry to babble - but I find the whole topic really interesting!