Nearly all politicians and many pundits have been repeatedly telling Americans that a college education is necessary for nearly all people, and should be affordable. Some even claim it should be a right and free to the student. I've linked a couple of articles here to provide information about why tuition is so high, and what could be done about it.
Student debt: What's been driving college costs so high, anyway?
Colleges are not responsible to the student for the cost of tuition. They are far more interested in sports arenas and stadiums, faculty salaries, and how much money in donations from alumni and local business community. The demands of raising the university's status and rankings that will lead to higher enrollments and higher income is the goal. Education for the dollar is less important, though often spoken.
Students and their families are forced to borrow more and more to achieve the stated goal since costs are soaring. The costs are soaring due to higher demands by all parties involved. Faculty and staff want higher salaries and benefits. Alumni want bigger stadiums. Students want better dorms and facilities. Administrators want more money in the endowment funds. Costs go up and students pay.
And is the quality of the education incrementally better? Hardly. There are many studies that conclude students entering college are less prepared, and therefore programs need to be adjusted down in order to meet the ability of the students.
Equity Model for Affording College
Currently there is the cash model, in which the student pays for college as they go. There is the debt model which leads to higher loans and debt to be repaid after graduation, job or not. Now there is the equity model.
In the equity model a college or university would claim a percent of the graduates' salaries for a fixed number of years into their careers. An example would be to pay the university 5% of your annual salary for 15 years. The formula could change or even be negotiable based on the specific university, student and intended career path.
Under this method the university has a vested interest in both keeping costs lower, and better preparing students for their careers.
The equity model is intriguing.
ReplyDeleteMy parents gave me a certain amount of money toward my schooling, but I borrowed a LOT of money to make up the difference. Following my graduation, I was paying 30% of my gross salary in loan payments. It wasn't sustainable and I ultimately had to change my career path to be able to afford to pay my loans.
Paying a percentage of salary would ensure that payments are manageable and provide incentives to colleges. However, for a faith-based institution like the one I attended, which encouraged community service-focused paths, would the university suffer? How do we reward institutions that encourage students to give and expect little in return?
The payment terms for each program and each student could possibly be negotiated based on potential for earnings and cost of education. A higher earning potenttial would be much more accomdating to the equity method than a lower earning potential. Volunteer efforts could be accounted for when negotiating the repqyment terms, but I would not think it would be very impactful.
ReplyDelete