Let's do away with student loans for college/university.

[yllus]

University is an expensive proposition, there's little doubt about that. But what if we switched around the payment model to make student education an investment instead of as a mere faceless consumer?

Rather than require students to pay tuition fees, either out of pocket or with the help of third parties, Prof. Pardy suggests that universities themselves should sustain the up-front costs of educating their students. In return, universities would be entitled to a share of students' incomes after graduation.

This implies not only a change in the way we finance students and universities, but our whole view of the relationship between them. Previous reform models see students as consumers, who purchase an education from university providers. But in fact students are themselves the product -- or more precisely, assets to be developed. In Prof. Pardy's model, the university, as an investor in the student's education, acquires a direct stake in his future career prospects.

How does that matter? Under a tuition fee model, however these are financed, the university loses interest in the student more or less from the moment they're paid. Yes, they don't want to jeopardize their reputation, or to lose students part way through their degree. But there are costs to switching schools, and other ways of attracting students besides good teaching: snob appeal, scenic locales, etc.

But a university whose revenues were wholly derived from students' career earnings would be devoted to ensuring students wring every ounce of benefit from their time in school, now and in the future. They would have a vested interest, not only in the quality of the education students received -- no more 800-seat lecture halls and bored, incomprehensible lecturers -- but in placing them in jobs afterwards. They would become lifelong partners in their success.

- Learn now, pay later

I think it'd be pretty interesting, but hard to implement as it'd mean an enormous shift away from the current model. Suddenly you wouldn't just have sports teams seeking out talent across the country in local high schools - you'd have scouts from the computer science programs, finance programs, business programs, all analyzing scores and stats and pitching an education at students instead of the other way around. Pretty nifty.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Too communistic for me. Take what you need, give what you can...

 

[yllus]

*scratches head* How is it 'communistic' at all? You'd have individual schools not caring about race, religion, or sex - they'd be seeking the best human investment for a return over the long term.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

It's an interesting idea, but I'd rather pay up front for my education than have someone garnishing my wages for the rest of my life.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: yllus
*scratches head* How is it 'communistic' at all? You'd have individual schools not caring about race, religion, or sex - they'd be seeking the best human investment for a return over the long term.

But the same schmuck gets the same education and he gets paid half. If it were a % system, it costsme more to get the same education. I am strictly monetarily conservative, and I just don't like it.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

Originally posted by: yllus
*scratches head* How is it 'communistic' at all? You'd have individual schools not caring about race, religion, or sex - they'd be seeking the best human investment for a return over the long term.

It's communistic in the idea that other people are getting what you're earning. At least that's the idea that I can draw.

 

[amddude]

Yeah that's a completely horrible idea.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
But the same schmuck gets the same education and he gets paid half. If it were a % system, it costsme more to get the same education. I am strictly monetarily conservative, and I just don't like it.

Sorry, I don't understand, can you expand on that?

Originally posted by: BobDaMenkey
It's communistic in the idea that other people are getting what you're earning. At least that's the idea that I can draw.

As opposed to the paying up front and them getting the same amount anyways?

 

[desteffy]

haha they'd be like. "... ok Philosophy, Modern language and Art departments, you guys are CLOSED"

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: desteffy
haha they'd be like. "... ok Philosophy, Modern language and Art departments, you guys are CLOSED"

Forget English and History majors too.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: desteffy
haha they'd be like. "... ok Philosophy, Modern language and Art departments, you guys are CLOSED"

Why? People with those degrees don't ever get jobs?
In the UK we already basically have that system, government run.
We get our tuition and a loan for living costs (rent etc) given to use every year, and then once we graduate and earn over a certain amount of money, we begin to pay it back.

 

[MrChad]

It's an interesting idea, but I'm skeptical of the justifications.

But a university whose revenues were wholly derived from students' career earnings would be devoted to ensuring students wring every ounce of benefit from their time in school, now and in the future. They would have a vested interest, not only in the quality of the education students received -- no more 800-seat lecture halls and bored, incomprehensible lecturers -- but in placing them in jobs afterwards. They would become lifelong partners in their success.

The U.S.'s open university system is already motivated to provide a better education experience. Competition between both public and private facilities has improved the quality of education across the board. As a prospective student, you have a lot of options when it comes to college, and universities are striving to win you over.

Also, I see this system as driving education costs even higher. When you pay up front, you notice a rise in tuition costs right away. Pay later (and over time) and increases may go unnoticed.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
Too communistic for me.

i concur, sounds like a pinko commie idea
but most universities have 90% commie staff anyway

 

[T9D]

What about all the people who get their education then go to another country and decide not to pay? Or people who come into a country....get the education.... then go back to their own country and dont pay? It would never work. The Colleges would lose millions and millions. The sad truth about many many people is if they have what they want already then their obligations go out the window if they can get away with it.

Also what about the people who go to college and get out and really do nothing with their life or go back to working at starbucks? Good luck getting money from them. And there are a LOT of people who do that. I've known a lot of people who go to school just to go to school. It's like their carreer is school and they dont ever actually want to work ever. To many variables here for this idea to work.

 

[boredhokie]

It's a nice idea but tk109 has a good point. I think equality of educational access is important, and having a standard set of admissions policies (grades + tuition cost) is the best way, if not the most ideal.

Edit: Tuition was also an incentive to me to get scholarships and work my way through school. 6 months out of school and I have a good job and no debt, and I like it that way. People should have that choice.