Getting InPaying for College: 5% of Salary for 20 years

[tydas]

Very interesting idea...

http://www.businessweek.com/bschool...ying_for_college_delaying_the_inevitable.html

"How much of your annual salary would you be willing to fork over in exchange for a college education? A group in California thinks it should be 5 percent for the first 20 years after graduation.

Fix UC is the group making this bold proposal. The organization consists of the editorial board of the Highlander student newspaper at UC Riverside, which is part of a UC system that had more than its share of financial troubles during the recession and where tuition has nearly quadrupled in the last 10 years. After nine months in the incubation phase, the proposal—dubbed the UC Student Investment Proposal—was published today, and goes before the Board of Regents next week.

Here’s how it would work. Once fully implemented, UC students would pay nothing to attend—no tuition, no fees, no housing. Instead, they would pay a portion of their annual salary every year for 20 years. For most students it would be a flat 5 percent. Out-of-state students and those who avail themselves of on-campus housing would pay more. If you transferred into the UC system, stayed in California after graduation, or went to work in the public sector, you’d pay less. And if you transferred out (or dropped out) you’d have to pay tuition for your time as a UC student immediately."

 

[cybrsage]

Public sector should not be given special benefits. They should have to pay the same as everyone else. This would also need to be made bankruptsy proof, else people would be clearing their debt easily.

The stayed in California part is fine, that promotes keeping people in the state.

 

[child of wonder]

Interesting idea.

However, I wonder how profitable it will be long term. As we all know, college degree does not equal high paying job.

 

[Chess]

Interesting idea.

However, I wonder how profitable it will be long term. As we all know, college degree does not equal high paying job.

you are right on that... as my old lady is figuring out right now.... degree in 2008 and works at dick sporting goods.... go her haha

 

[Lizardman]

I wonder if you have to pay 5% for 20 years even if you can only get a job at Walmart?

 

[J-Money]

Yeah I'd say should only have to pay if you land a job related to / because of your specific education.

 

[cybrsage]

Yeah I'd say should only have to pay if you land a job related to / because of your specific education.

They would go bankrupt that way. Think of all the liberal arts students. Unless McDonalds counts as being related to that degree, these students will get their eductation for free.

 

[J-Money]

They would go bankrupt that way. Think of all the liberal arts students. Unless McDonalds counts as being related to that degree, these students will get their eductation for free.

I'm sure they can loophole people into it. Make outrageous claims on how certain degrees link to certain jobs.

Like any who takes any business degrees has to pay if they work for any business.

 

[spidey07]

So we'll have a successful person making 200k = 200k over 20 years of payment
While the 50k salary pays 50k over 20 years for the exact same product.

Sounds like robbery to me.

 

[sm625]

As long as the 14000 administrators at each campus all get their 6 figure salaries and pensions, its a good idea! Keep that gravy train a-flowin.

So we'll have a successful person making 200k = 200k over 20 years of payment
While the 50k salary pays 50k over 20 years for the exact same product.

Sounds like robbery to me.

It is robbery. What they are trying to do is build implicit inflation expectations into everything. What happens if we get huge inflation and every graduate makes an average of 300k in 10 years? They just keep piling on these types of inflation expectations, and we wonder why the market gyrates so wildly.

 

[J-Money]

So we'll have a successful person making 200k = 200k over 20 years of payment
While the 50k salary pays 50k over 20 years for the exact same product.

Sounds like robbery to me.

Still rather be the guy who is making 200k a year.

Hell if someone wants to give me a $200k a year job I'll gladly pay 5% of my income to whoever wants it.

 

[Texashiker]

"How much of your annual salary would you be willing to fork over in exchange for a college education? A group in California thinks it should be 5 percent for the first 20 years after graduation.

How about we shift the burden of the education from the employee to the employer?

Since the employer is profiting the most from the employees educations, doesn't it make sense that the employer pays for the education?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The cost of education is a tricky issue but I don't particularly like this idea. IMO the simplest thing to do is to require to schools to provide accurate employment data to potential students broken down by major.

The second thing I would do is get rid of the government guarantee on student loans, and make them dischargable in bankruptcy but not as easily as other other types of debt. This would force people in crappy majors to pay higher rates to reflect their poorer employment prospects. It would filter down and likely lower prices and shift students into more productive majors.

 

[J-Money]

How about we shift the burden of the education from the employee to the employer?

Since the employer is profiting the most from the employees educations, doesn't it make sense that the employer pays for the education?

Mine does as long as it applies to a job at the company I work for. Non-union.

And that you keep decent marks.

 

[yllus]

I've heard of this before and I think it'd make for a very interesting experiment at a minimum. There'd be a much greater incentive for teachers and professors that their students excel in real-world terms. Very curious to see what that'd lead to.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

How about we shift the burden of the education from the employee to the employer?

Since the employer is profiting the most from the employees educations, doesn't it make sense that the employer pays for the education?

We had that. It was called indentured servitude.

 

[BoberFett]

We had that. It was called indentured servitude.

It was called OTJ Training. Unions still do this. Are union members indentured servants?

Beyond that, unions train people as apprentices and take a cut of their wages for as long as they're in the union.

 

[Thump553]

This isn't a new idea. A couple of decades ago I attended a Jesuit law school that had a high school and university associated with it. I had classmates that went through all three, and at least one told me he had a tuitition deal where everything was covered in exchange for a pledge of x% (one or two percent, I don't remember) for lifetime. It was a option as opposed to paying the regular tuition up front like I did.

Incidentally that person has done extremely well over his career.

 

[silverpig]

This would ensure schools had their students' success in mind, and would link the demand for certain professions to the supply of trained individuals.

No longer would they be producing way more lawyers than the market demanded. They'd recruit more science teachers and fewer social studies teachers... I think it'd be a great way to go.

There'd be more competition for the philosophy spots in school and it wouldn't be the "oh, I don't know what to take, so I'll major in philosophy" degree.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Basically, another form of the student loan.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Interesting idea.

However, I wonder how profitable it will be long term. As we all know, college degree does not equal high paying job.

In that regard, I think it actually might be a good idea because it might force universities to revisit some of their degree programs and/or stop promoting years-old salary stats that are no longer true.

 

[dfuze]

How about we shift the burden of the education from the employee to the employer?

Since the employer is profiting the most from the employees educations, doesn't it make sense that the employer pays for the education?

Many do pay for it, mine included which is how I got my degree.

 

[child of wonder]

In that regard, I think it actually might be a good idea because it might force universities to revisit some of their degree programs and/or stop promoting years-old salary stats that are no longer true.

Good point.

Making the student's future career success and income a direct correlation to how much the school gets paid would prompt them to focus on more profitable degrees, train students on interviewing skills and resume writing, post graduation job placement, etc.

A person might be paying more overall for their degree should they become successful, but the extra money also provided all the other things listed above.

 

[Hugo Drax]

How about we shift the burden of the education from the employee to the employer?

Since the employer is profiting the most from the employees educations, doesn't it make sense that the employer pays for the education?

You would need to build a time machine and go back to the early 70s and under.

You are correct, Thanks to our lemon socialist government, private industry is being subsidized by the taxpayers so they get pre trained employees.

The employee take on all the risk, so does the taxpayer in this country and the private companies get the risk free reward.

Back in the olden days, capitalism meant you take the risk to reap the reward. No lemon socialism.

 

[JS80]

How would they enforce it