Why not have a college where the student pays absolutely nothing up front, but signs a contract giving the college 2% of his/her income to the college for the next 10 years?
The college would have a huge incentive to make these students into highly-paid professionals, and poor people who couldn't pay for a top-notch college would be breaking down the doors to get in, because it would be essentially free, until the student starts earning money.
The only problem I see is funding the college until the students start earning.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
The 2/10 numbers might not be correct, but the idea is a good one.`
I think this is a great idea. Agree with the previous respondent that it may have to be more than 2 percent. Right now the colleges charge so much money for BS courses that are a waste of the students time. This would provide incentive for the colleges to provide competent instruction on relevant subjects.
well I see a few problems with this:
a) financial aide, most poorer students receive pell grants nowadays, so this would actually end up costing them a lot more (meaning more than books and lab fees)
b) in essence this is like a subsidized loan from the student's perspective. loan is a little bit better since it's a definite amount and does the same thing as far as the dynamics of incentives goes. versus someone getting a really high income job and paying far more because he applied himself more in school and the guy who skated buy pays the school less.
c) unlike these other guys, degree programs are only intended to certify a person as having a certain skillset in a general field which is why you have the "BS" courses in the first place, just because many occupations in that field find them used at some level or may in the future.
hate to shoot you down, I like the creativity I just don't think it's a workable concept.
a) It will only cost them more if they make more money from it later, i.e. they can afford it.
b) How are you calling the loan subsidized? How does the school pay for it? Doesn't that depend on how much the loan is for? Secondly, the guy who applied himself more in school pays more, then that means he is MAKING MORE MONEY than the guy who skated BY. To say that people will be less willing to try to earn lots of money after college because then they'd have to pay back more money, is preposterous. I think a lot more people would be happy knowing that they are basically guaranteed to be able to make their student loan payments, rather than worrying about whether or not their varying paycheck can match the absolute loan payment amount.
c) I can hardly tell what you're saying, and I certainly don't see the relevance to the idea as stated by the poster.
Definitely for it. Anything that places incentive for the college to see students succeed afterwards seems like a really good idea.
This idea was called "Human Capital Resource funds" back in the '90s, and while I'm afraid I don't have a citation handy IIRC I read about it in Reason magazine back then. The idea was to have this be an alternative means of financial aid, rather than have it be the way tuition is assessed. Still, interesting idea, and I'd love to see someone make it work.
An intriguing alternative to today's options. Again, the problem of how these colleges would initially be funded, and how much influence these "sponsors" have.
I think there would need to be a cap on the money given back in this situation. I have done quite well in my career, and it is not all thanks to a BS, but also a MS degree that I didn't get from the same school. How would the school seperate the two payments, who would get what amount of my paycheck, would there be a minimum/maximum amount of cost for education?
It would provide much work for collection agencies, just like the current student loan program.