No, he wasn't biased.  The article clearly states that the Occupation people bought these loans for pennies on the dollar.  Loans are not sold for pennies on the dollar until they are heavily delinquent.  Note it says they bought $3.8 million worth of loans for $100,000.

The woman who got a $600 loan paid off doesn't mention the loan was delinquent or not, but given the earlier implication then it probably was, and they bought the delinquent loan for $15 or whatever, and then told her she doesn't have to pay anything.

How can a US university cost so much when the campus halls seem to be almost like army barracks but not even have a kitchen? I don't know how wide spread that is but thats what i heard when i thought about studying abroad and the USA was an option. 

If a US university costs are similar to my university i'm studying at. They are probably not spending all of it on research and education. The vice-chancellor at Plymouth (where i'm studying) gets nearly £300,000 a year and the chancellor gets over £500,000 a year. University can be ran far cheaper i think, but when management get over £100,000 a year it's just crazy. their pay should be closer to the lecturers and support staff. While costs like building new facilities are necessary but don't happen that often. And also you know it's stupid when some universities lower your fees if you get a high result.

Tuition fees are just a rip off 

I don't know how it works in the UK, but since the federal government has gotten involved in higher education the inflation rates for college have exceeded the average inflation by about six times. Why? Because the schools know that they can make the cost of education expensive and the actual burden won't be on the students but rather the government. If I were born in 1960 I could afford my top private (as a poor student - bottom 5%) by working part-time - 20 hours a week. Today because of high inflation rates I need to be subsidized 3/5th of my tuition/cost of education by my university, 1/5th by the federal government (loans/grants), and I still work part-time (20 hours) to pay the rest off. I'd rather the first option than the second, because in the end I would have much less debt. 

Honestly, I don't think the solution is to give more money to the universities and allow them to have control over prices like they do now because of subsidies. 

Not quite. Original creditors often enter into contracts with debt buyers called forward-flow agreements, wherein they agree to sell large portfolios theoretically worth $X years in advance. The process is highly automated: many of the accounts are worthless, but a large chunk have real value, which is why debt buying is quite a profitable industry. The accounts can vary in age from a few years to just a few months: it's the financial version of hobo stew.

Basically, don't be too hasty in assuming the purchased accounts were worthless, or that serious efforts to collect were undertaken by the bank, let alone a collection agency. Admittedly, it is likely that these particular accounts went through at least one debt buyer first, but that's actually fairly routine in the industry even for accounts with value in them. You're giving the collectors too much credit here.

That sounds interesting but how do we know if University would be affordable like that still if University wasn't interfered by government (I assume they are mostly private in America, most British universities are public and was free at point of use till 1997). 

In the 60s, the economy was very strong, debt was low, everyone was working and disposable income was very high. But the strong economy that existed in the 50s, 60s and early 70s couldn't last forever and i'm not sure if government can be blamed for the majority of problems. Ironic as it was, there was little competition for America back then and so it could do very well. 

And if you don't think better funding is the answer, how would you make it so university is actually affordable for everyone? 

Just remember the vast majority of your over paid tenured professors and deans are as far left as they can go without falling off. So they are happy to rail against these inequalities and unfairness of it all as long as it doesn't affect them.

Bummer, I can't be helped, as I'm all federal, no private.

The thing is, those professors and managers have got used to a (wildly excessive) level of pay, and they're not exactly going to be happy about accepting a cut, especially when people are willing to pay the exorbitant fees that fund them.

Tuition fees are also probably subsidising research, though the opposite tends to happen in leading British universities.

I worked my ass off to make sure I graduated debt-free, but I really don't think most people will be able to. In my case, I lived with my parents, maintained a 3.75 GPA to maintain full-ride scholarship, and worked a part-time job to cover the 20+ semester hours the "full-ride scholarship" didn't cover. The whole exercise took me almost 8 years.

And the irony is I was unemployable on graduation because I didn't have enough work experience.

I think forgiving debt is a good start, but we really need to rethink everything about how college works. College is designed to produce academics, not an educated work force. Higher education really needs to rearrange itself to favor work-study and internships because these give students experience and skills while minimizing debt. Classes on most academic disciplines create the most debt possible and give students the fewest skills.

Well we know the cause of the high inflation rate in education (government subsidies) so we know what the problem is. Of course we can't assume that nothing else would've occured to cause high inflation rates, but it is better to address the problem we know exists than the one we can only speculate of. In the 60's the economy was (relatively) strong, meaning that growth was very high. It wasn't absolutely stronger though. I'd rather live today than in the 60's to be honest. The cost of living is cheaper and I have more opportunities. It just so happens that growth is slower/non-existant in this era. Anyway, that's besides the point. In periods like the 90's, which had higher stability than the 60's, we can still see huge inflation rates for all education, but especially higher education, and of course we are speaking relative to the average rate of inflation (which reflects the monetary policies of the era/accomodates for the changing economic viability.) 

How would I make college more affordable? Introduce it to a competitive market in which lower prices force educators to reduce costs and disables their ability to change prices. The colleges will become price-takers and not price-makers. How does one do that? Reduce the amount of subsidies colleges gain. Honestly I think online education and developing community colleges are already ahead legislation in this matter. Universities are so frightened by these entities that they beg the state to remove them from the scene in addition to creating very strict and irrational accreditation policies. Subsidies also have the secondary effect of allowing students to major in whichever failed/unsucessful subject they want to, on the dime of others. There are a plethora of psychology, english, and liberal arts majors for example who have no job opportunites after they graduate, in turn, forcing them to default on loans and reducing the viability of the system for everyone. Without subsidies people would make more sound-proof decisions when they choose their major because it's their money and not debt they are spending. People would only take loans if they felt that they needed them. As it is now there is a student loan bubble not so much unlike the housing bubble of 2008 caused by government "stimulation."