Thiel's also discussed elsewhere his frustration with the liberal politics of academia, which he sees as an impediment to libertarian policies gaining wider buy-in, so I think he might have motivations for attempting to undermine it besides pure concern for students' debt. (Though it's quite possible he earnestly dislikes academia for multiple, independent reasons.)

Nail on head. Common politician tactic.

He's a hardcore objectivist libertarian. He most certainly doesn't care the least bit about student loan debts.

But this is kind of an ad hominem. He's also correct.

>He repeatedly talked about the concern of young people leaving college with 200k+ in debt -- which I think is very fair.

But is that a real problem? The statistics I've seen show that the proportion of students with more than $100,000 in debt is tiny. Most students graduate with ~$25,000 in debt. At that debt level, a college education is still a no-brainer.

I'd be willing to argue that if you've managed to rack up $200,000 in debt financing a college education, you've either 1) had extraordinarily bad luck or 2) made extraordinarily poor choices. Neither case is an indictment of the system at large.

  At that debt level, a college education is still a no-brainer.

I would argue that depends heavily on which degree you're coming out with. I know a lot of communications and psychology majors who are working in food service 3-4 years after graduating, still living at home, and getting assistance from their regretful parents who cosigned on their student loans.

In the recent Thiel debate he said in fact that he supported undergrad education inclusive of non-technical degrees and was personally glad he did what he did. The larger question related to increasing price tag vs. decreasing value.

I'm sure some people might find Arrington very convincing as well (especially when he's recycling old jwz material). That may be why jwz has chosen to speak out.

Whether or not someone is convincing is moot if they're correct. That's what should be considered, not whether or not they're convincing. And every self-thinking analytical individual should be free to draw their own conclusions, after gathering as much data as possible.

Ahh if only the world and media worked that way. Sadly as if you look at most politicians, being right is way less critical then being convincing.