Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: An Alternative Higher Education System

  1. #1

    An Alternative Higher Education System

    Just tossing this out for the lols, but it'd be interesting to see how the College/University/Ju.Co. system would change if they had a more direct vested interest in their students futures.

    What if.....


    ......instead of student paying a direct fee up front for theri education, they paid nothing. Thats right nothing up front.

    Instead, the Student (upon graduation) must pay a small percentage of his income directly to the School for the rest of his employed life. Say 0.05%

    If the students do well, the school does well.

    The Student never faces the at-times overwhelming burden of hundreds of thousands in school debt before they work a posty-college day in their lives.

    Education would (IMO) become more focussed on real useful skills and education. Yes, the "arts" and the soft classes "Womens lesbian studies" might suffer, but the system as a whole (I think) might work better.

    I know some are going to come troll this idea right off the bat (and I even know who), but I'd liek to hear some serious replies as to what such a system would look like, how it would be different from the "pay us $200,000K now, then best of luck" system of today, and if such a system could work.

    :D

    P.S. The same would also go for "Student" Atheletes who go pro. Pay nothing up front, but owe the School a portion for life. No more free rides using the State Education system as a de facto free Minor League for the big sports leagues.
    Last edited by Warfish; 03-13-2012 at 11:03 AM.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4394585]Just tossing this out for the lols, but it'd be interesting to see how the College/University/Ju.Co. system would change if they had a more direct vested interest in their students futures.

    What if.....


    ......instead of student paying a direct fee up front for theri education, they paid nothing. Thats right nothing up front.

    Instead, the Student (upon graduation) must pay a small percentage of his income directly to the School for the rest of his employed life. Say 0.05%

    If the students do well, the school does well.

    The Student never faces the at-times overwhelming burden of hundreds of thousands in school debt before they work a posty-college day in their lives.

    Education would (IMO) become more focussed on real useful skills and education. Yes, the "arts" and the soft classes "Womens lesbian studies" might suffer, but the system as a whole (I think) might work better.

    [B]I know some are going to come troll this idea right off the bat [/B](and I even know who), but I'd liek to hear some serious replies as to what such a system would look like, how it would be different from the "pay us $200,000K now, then best of luck" system of today, and if such a system could work.

    :D[/QUOTE]

    Because skill and education don't always correllate to income?

    Somehow, some of the dumbest and least educated people I know are making a lot more than most of us ever will on Wall Street or in big time law firms. They didn't get there because of intelligence or education. Smarter to have chosen those fields, maybe, and had the family or friend connections to do so, more power to them. The community colleges they attended would be making windfalls.

    Meanwhile, some of the more intelligent and educated people I know are living paycheck to paycheck or struggling to get by because they chose to teach or stay home and raise their kids. Their higher eds would be getting bubkis.

    Sounds good on the surface, but I just don't see how it could work realistically.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    PS: This already exists to some degree, WF. In the form of alumni donations, a major source of higher ed income.

    Harvard gets a lot more in that category than say... Kean University

  4. #4
    Guess nobody thought the cobcept was interesting. Meh, so be it.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,961
    An interesting concept to say the least.

    Would all future income be subject to this royalty? What if the person wins the lottery, obtains a big inheritance, or makes a fortune with an investment?

    This is a devil's advocate example, but how about this scenario?

    Person A majors in English, obtains a BA, goes into an unrelated field such as construction, and has to pay a fee to his college for the rest of his life. Person B majors in English, drops out a month before obtaining a BA, goes into construction, and basically gets a free ride for four years and owes nothing to his college.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=parafly;4395331]An interesting concept to say the least.

    Would all future income be subject to this royalty? What if the person wins the lottery, obtains a big inheritance, or makes a fortune with an investment?

    This is a devil's advocate example, but how about this scenario?[/quote]

    I would say "earned income". Lottery and Inheretance would be excepted. Investment would not.

    [QUOTE]Person A majors in English, obtains a BA, goes into an unrelated field such as construction, and has to pay a fee to his college for the rest of his life.[/QUOTE]

    Yep.

    [quote]Person B majors in English, drops out a month before obtaining a BA, goes into construction, and basically gets a free ride for four years and owes nothing to his college.[/QUOTE]

    No. Pro-rated based on length on time in perhaps.

  7. #7
    I don't know if this is a good idea, and I bet, it would be less profitable to the schools.

    How do you charge a school athlete who by virtue of his performance on the field at no pay raises money for the schools through donations and TV deals and the numerous other ways that college sports make schools money? How do you quantify how much his performance may have added to the coffers.

    Also with people not working in fields that they studied in, how would you reconcile someone who had a less expensive education earning more money than someone who may have had a more expensive education but makes less.

    I think the real problem with higher education costs is the student loan process. The gov't should not be backing loans, and not how they used to, with nothing to gain from it.

    If loans weren't available less people would go to private schools and as enrollment dropped costs would have to come down.

    The only thing I would maybe be okay with gov't money backing is trade schools or vocational schools. Whatever they are called. Normally a guy who studies a specific trade becomes a plumber, or an electrician, etc etc and that is a more sound investment than in someone going to a private college and get a degree in, say, American history might become an insurance salesman, or a restaurant manager, or a number of other variable outcomes vocationally.

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,581
    What about post graduate education?

    What of you're a ****ty student when you graduate, dick around for a while an earn next to nothing, thereby paying back your school next to nothing.

    Then, say you get your act together 3 years or so down the road, go to law school, come out and become a high paid corporate attorney. You pay the law school, but do you pay your undergrad institution, and if so -- at the same rate?

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    I wouldn't mind it. But what if they transferred/attended multiple schools? How do you split it up regarding multiple degrees? What if they get a job that isn't in the field they went to school for, or is just barely related to it?

    I think a lot of what college is is a joke though. In my experience, I could have learned at least half of the material myself just by buying and studying the books. And that's a conservative estimate. It's becoming an outdated system, imo.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=Sharrow;4395964]I wouldn't mind it. But what if they transferred/attended multiple schools? How do you split it up regarding multiple degrees? What if they get a job that isn't in the field they went to school for, or is just barely related to it?

    I think a lot of what college is is a joke though. In my experience, I could have learned at least half of the material myself just by buying and studying the books. And that's a conservative estimate. It's becoming an outdated system, imo.[/QUOTE]

    I agree, it is just a validation of your education that can be verified. It would be good if you could test out of most classes (subjects you are already proficient in) and just take the ones you need more information in.

    Hmm, that actually might be a viable business. When I went back to school they let me test out of the math requirements because I went through Calc 4 at a previous college. Worst case scenario was if you didn't pass you had to take some algebra class. Why is this ok for math and not biology or history?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4395961]What about post graduate education?

    What of you're a ****ty student when you graduate, dick around for a while an earn next to nothing, thereby paying back your school next to nothing.

    Then, say you get your act together 3 years or so down the road, go to law school, come out and become a high paid corporate attorney. You pay the law school, but do you pay your undergrad institution, and if so -- at the same rate?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, you'd pay both. Basicaly, the system would be "X credits taken = x % of future income".

    Of course, students would owe nothing up front, and have no massive debt over the heads when first starting their lives, which (IMO) is a better outcome than having $1.50 taken from each paycheck in perpetuity.

    In your scenario, yes, the person would pay for their undergrad and their Law school. During the "screweing around stage" they'd only pay for the undergraduate, and only if they made an income, and only the % of their income specificed (which such a ssytem would have to figure out, of course, I don't have a specific % in mind per se).

    No up front debt, and only a very small % of your income taken per check, would (IMO) make education vastly more appealing and available to those who would wualify (based on grades/activities/testing of course).

    Didn't really have a 100 page manifesto of details when I wrote the OP, so obviously alot of the finer points/details would need figured out.:D

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Sharrow;4395964]I wouldn't mind it. But what if they transferred/attended multiple schools? How do you split it up regarding multiple degrees? What if they get a job that isn't in the field they went to school for, or is just barely related to it?[/QUOTE]

    The Federal Education Repayment Division of the IRS.

    Something like this would probably work best as an offshoot of the IRS, since the deduction would be handled much like a tax is handled, i.e. removed from yoru paycheck each pay cycle. Or paid at the end of the year (investments).

    Anyway, the IRS will need something to do after the "Warfish Flat Tax" gets passed, right?:D

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,311
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4396207]Yes, you'd pay both. Basicaly, the system would be "X credits taken = x % of future income".

    Of course, students would owe nothing up front, and have no massive debt over the heads when first starting their lives, which (IMO) is a better outcome than having $1.50 taken from each paycheck in perpetuity.

    In your scenario, yes, the person would pay for their undergrad and their Law school. During the "screweing around stage" they'd only pay for the undergraduate, and only if they made an income, and only the % of their income specificed (which such a ssytem would have to figure out, of course, I don't have a specific % in mind per se).

    No up front debt, and only a very small % of your income taken per check, would (IMO) make education vastly more appealing and available to those who would wualify [B](based on grades/activities/testing of course[/B]).

    Didn't really have a 100 page manifesto of details when I wrote the OP, so obviously alot of the finer points/details would need figured out.:D[/QUOTE]

    Don't forget race and gender.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us