Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I don't want free education - I want an educational model in place where you reap what you sow, not get conned out of your money (tax dollars or income) for an inferior product.
Wouldn't it be better just to have a free education? I mean, the guys who make the most can easily afford college. It seems like you are more concerned about the people who don't make any money. Why should I have to pay for college for people who don't make any money? Isn't that pretty much socialism?
Wouldn't it be better just to have a free education?
No, there's simply no such thing as free education, or free anything for that matter. Someone would have to foot the bill to pay for college expenses (professors, infrastructure, supplies, admin, land, etc). Knowing how historically the Federal and State and Local governments tend to mess up most things they regulate, I'd rather see a business model change from within.
For the model I proposed, a College program would need to float costs for 1-5 years while the first wave of affected students attend school and then finally graduate. Upon graduation, and getting their first job, the school simply takes a set percentage of their income (let's say 6%) for a particular period of time (let's say 30 years). If the students are indeed motivated, and well-equipped to obtain high paying jobs, the professors can expect to reap wonderful rewards obtained via significant money from the graduates. If the market changes, and demand or reputation for said program withers, then the graduates will begin to earn less, and the professors will see their salaries affected. I don't see anything wrong with this idea... if Professors have something worth teaching, and an effective way of imparting that knowledge to others, why shouldn't they reap what they sow. To float costs for the initial waves of graduates, all that's really needed is investment by some venture capitalists and saved up endowments. Not every college needs to adopt this model for it to work - it could start with just one or two colleges and then become a "movement" business-model-wise across the globe.
Upon graduation, and getting their first job, the school simply takes a set percentage of their income (let's say 6%) for a particular period of time (let's say 30 years).
So not only do I get to pay uncle sam, property tax, municipal tax, gas tax, I get to pay a college tax too? Will I get a refund on the portion of state taxes I pay that go to education? What about people who WANT to take out a loan and pay it off in say, 10 years (which is what I did). It just seems to remove flexibility and choice from the system solely for the benefit of low income earners. How does this help middle income people? It seems to just penalize anyone who makes money. This idea seems like a deterrent, not an incentive. Paying 6% of income to college for 30 years is going to make a lot of people reconsider college entirely.
What I advocate is low-interest loans, loan forgiveness in high-demand fields, and public / private partnerships which would subsidize college. The reality is that college in some states (i.e. California) is so inexpensive as to be negligible.
So not only do I get to pay uncle sam, property tax, municipal tax, gas tax, I get to pay a college tax too? Will I get a refund on the portion of state taxes I pay that go to education? What about people who WANT to take out a loan and pay it off in say, 10 years (which is what I did). It just seems to remove flexibility and choice from the system solely for the benefit of low income earners. How does this help middle income people? It seems to just penalize anyone who makes money. This idea seems like a deterrent, not an incentive. Paying 6% of income to college for 30 years is going to make a lot of people reconsider college entirely.
What I advocate is low-interest loans, loan forgiveness in high-demand fields, and public / private partnerships which would subsidize college. The reality is that college in some states (i.e. California) is so inexpensive as to be negligible.
You have some excellent points. Yes - you can refer to it as a college tax - but in reality it is not a tax... it is equivalent to a college loan. It's better than a college loan however because you pay a fixed percentage of what you earn, not a fixed amount you need to pay each month. You're also not paying it to the government, you're paying it directly to the college, and indirectly back to the professors. It is a win-win situation for everyone...
#1 - You will be assured that your professors are teaching you something of value, because they have something at stake.
#2 - Students will further benefit as college Career Centers and Professors alike will have motivation to help you find a well-paying job post-graduation
#3 - Professors who have great knowledge and the ability to impart it will see higher incomes
#4 - Government will no longer have to foot the bill to subsidize higher education, be it via student loans or via money allocated to state colleges or universities. It can if it wants to, but the reality will be that programs which are of real value will continue to exist and will do better than they do today --- 10 years down the road, a small program which graduates just 200 students/year, who earn a mean salary of 50k/per year (at 6% royalty) - will be earning $6,000,000.00 per year in royalties. How many faculty members does a 200 student program need to support it? - That I don't honestly know, but I'm certain it isn't very many, and I know that if each school in a university had a program funded this way, there'd be a lot more money available overall than accomplished with tuition today.
#5 - If you don't want to attend college or university it will always be your choice. Perhaps the ridiculous college programs today which do nothing to prepare one for a genuine occupation will disappear or get rolled into other programs. Perhaps non-serious young-adults who today attend college only because their parents push them to (not because they have any direction educationally or career-wise) will take some time before enrolling in college as well. I don't see that as a bad thing at all.
#6 Within reason, no-one will be deterred from getting a good education nor from finding or starting a good career with this model. If you earn more, you still pay only the fixed % of your wages back to the educational institution. It isn't like this is a progressive tax system where the highest wage earners pay 50% of their income back while those barely making ends meet perhaps pay nothing or only 5%... nope, it would be the same for everyone.
#7 Perhaps a buyout clause could be created for each graduate - equivalent to paying back a traditional student loan someone could re-finance their educational debt into a different form. I don't see why anyone would do this, but of course keeping options like that open would make sense.
LOL - it's funny but I had only given this like 30 seconds thought when I initially posted to this thread, but the more I think about it and the more I write about the possibilities, the more it makes sense (yes, sometimes I do end up disagreeing with my original premise - but not this time). Will it ever happen, who knows... perhaps I've planted the seeds of thought into someone's head who will pass it along or make it happen. If not, it really won't affect me since I'm post-education already, have my own business, have intelligent children whom I am going to encourage to pursue their passions and talents from a young age, and I'm not an "educator," just someone who regularly observes and thinks about things like this.
You have some excellent points. Yes - you can refer to it as a college tax - but in reality it is not a tax... it is equivalent to a college loan.
How is it not a tax?
Take this example (my actual numbers)
I go to college and take out 10k in student loans. I get subsidized loan with a 4% rate. I pay 100 dollars a month for 10 years, which with interest is a little over 12k for the life of the loan.
In your scenario, I pay 6% of my 100k salary a year, or 6k a year, for 30 years, meaning my college education now cost me 180,000. This assumes that my salary doesn't ever increase, which is rarely the case.
So I can pay 12k for college or 180k, please explain to me how this is a win-win.
Take this example (my actual numbers)
I go to college and take out 10k in student loans. I get subsidized loan with a 4% rate. I pay 100 dollars a month for 10 years, which with interest is a little over 12k for the life of the loan.
In your scenario, I pay 6% of my 100k salary a year, or 6k a year, for 30 years, meaning my college education now cost me 180,000. This assumes that my salary doesn't ever increase, which is rarely the case.
So I can pay 12k for college or 180k, please explain to me how this is a win-win.
#1 - The college loan programs today are subsidized which is why you could get such a low interest rate (lower than the market rate for a financial loan)- meaning that our government (aka our tax dollars) are paying at least in part for them. Tuition at particular colleges and universities are also artificially held lower due to direct government funding as well. This brings up a point you made earlier --- Why should I be paying for any of your education? hmmm?
#2 - Your last statement indicates that you seem to have a problem with other people making money. I could argue the detailed economics of the situation with you at great length, but if you're earning on average 100k per year over 30 years - you're doing quite well for yourself. So 6k when you are earning 100k goes to the institution which helped you start your career path... big deal. For 15 or 30 years I don't see what your problem is - eventually you won't be paying that royalty... but for a good amount of time you will so that your alma mater continues to thrive and graduate competent students. You wouldn't be earning 100k per year without the degree right?
#3 - When you remove the State, Local, and Federal Educational programs for higher education from our governmental budgets you also can realize some decrease in taxation (right now we're all paying tax dollars which as #1 illustrates, helps others, not ourselves). There's a problem with socialized education as you mentioned previously - so let's stop moving that direction and privatize education moving to a model which is sustainable and fair - the users pay, no one else does.
#4 - Let us be realistic here as well. What schools or programs can you graduate today and start earning 100k per year? I'll answer for you... programs within Stanford, Yale, Cornell, Harvard, UPenn, Brown, etc... generally only the Ivy League institutions (or other select top tier schools) have programs that can achieve this goal according to the USNews and World report on education. On average the relevant programs cost students today an unsubsidized $35k+ per year... over 4 years that's a lot of money... that's at least $140k. Your $10k number isn't reasonable - your point may still stand as there are people who today may just want to or be willing to pay for their education in cash... I argue that option should still be available, but it should be recalculated according to what the program actually costs without subsidization of any kind, and with a decent amount of profit so that the school can run as a profitable and healthy business going forward. There's always going to be money lenders in this world... let them figure out a way to fund your education for you if you so desire to owe them rather than the institution. I don't think any of that really matters. What's important is that we solve some key problems facing our educational system today:
#1 - universities and colleges accustomed and dependent upon government subsidization (rather than being run like businesses)
#2 - professors and programs teaching knowledge which is not as valuable to the marketplace as their costs (both in terms of professor salaries or program expenses) would indicate
#3 - students dependent upon government subsidization of loans
#4 - tuitions are rising faster than the marketplace supports
#5 - many students do not take college seriously because their parents are footing the bill, and/or because they see no long-term connection between their tuition and what they will earn
Another thing that would cut down costs is reevaluating what constitutes a College degree. For example I'm supposed to be studying right now for a Bio exam. I'm obviously not doing that, I will soon though. I have no interest in it, I'm not going into a scientific field, so why do I have to take 4 courses with labs. Waste of money and my time. That right there with tuition and cost of living expenses would be almost $5000.
I've taken enough Science the past years in high school and on down the line. Interesting side note is that I watch Discovery and Health channel programs. Many have the same topics that I have to study and I get more out of the programs and find it interesting to boot. I can honestly say out of my AA degree I have liked maybe 3 or 4 courses and felt that I got something out of it. The rest I didn't except for my piece of paper that I will have after graduation. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way.
I've also had a counselor at the University tell me that College is about education it has nothing to do with jobs or making money. Well why am I there then? I'm there to be able to become more marketable to future employers and to make more money.
So I started taking another approach to school and thought I would get educated in something I like. I was justifying the cost by thinking along the lines of hobbies. Some people spend money on motorcycles, boats... Now that we are struggling as a nation I can't look at it like that. It would be like me buying something I can't afford that may make me no money in the future.
I'm now trying to get creative about getting the degree (because employers still want it) without paying a lot or into my sixties. I just refuse to do that.
I thought I should add that my interests in careers may only make between $30,000 -$50,000, if I'm lucky. So big debt doesn't make much sense. Especially if I can get to $30,000 without the degree.
My husband went to a cheap city college in NYC and basically paid like only $8,000 for all his 4 year college versus me going to a private university in nyc and paying like $50,000 all 4 years plus I had to stay 1 extra year.
He majored in accounting, graduated in 2004, got an entry level job paying $48k/year. I graduated in 2005 marketing degree and got a $30k/year and right now, he's a CPA makiiiing $85,000 a year versus me ONLY MAKING $38K/YEAR ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
so, i don't know.......... not fair
The problem with these one-size-fits-all scenarios is that life doesn't always line up neatly like that. I didn't graduate college and immediately make 100k. I attended college part-time and worked full-time. I walked down the aisle already making 75k as a software developer. So these programs would place a huge burden on someone like me. And FYI, I attended a third-tier state school and got an art degree, I'm no Harvard grad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
