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.
Yes they do. They will want to provide the highest-quality education they can so that their graduates will do as well as possible in their chosen fields. !
No they wouldnt. Their enticement would be to grow a college as big as they can to have the most students attend their college using whatever means is necessary, not at all limited to highest quality of education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
And the students have an incentive to contribute more to the fund, because no one is going to seek a lower income just so their 3 % is less than a high income earner--most people seek to maximize their pay no matter what field they are in!
I wonder how many people support this, but oppose the voucher program supported by Conservatives, even though its pretty much the exact same thing.
And that's a problem, for a state to have more money?
How do you figure "more" money is a result? The state has to borrow around $9 BILLION to start the program, and at 3% of the yearly income, thats 75% of one years salary over 25 years..
And since its in future dollars, which will be about 1/2 of todays value, the state will be collecting about 37.5% of one years wages meaning that someone with a salary of $40K, would be paying about $20K for college to the state.
Since people now have about $40-$50K in loans, where do you think the balance will come from?
The school gets paid up front, not over 25 years.. The "high income earners" would result in the state getting the money, not the school.
The schools are owned by the state of Oregon, they are not private schools. Also, how would this be any different than the current system of taking out loans? The school still gets paid up front, this is just a better way to see a return on students going to college in the state.
What the hell stops the growth in the cost under this program? Simply changing how its paid for, doesnt stop the need to pay for it..
Again, doesn't change anything other than letting students to go to college debt free and having their tuition be paid back on a sliding scale so that everyone is able to pay for the degree they earned.
Now you are just arguing against it just for the sake of arguing.
The schools are owned by the state of Oregon, they are not private schools. Also, how would this be any different than the current system of taking out loans? The school still gets paid up front, this is just a better way to see a return on students going to college in the state.
So government hasnt been able to keep the cost of education down, so the solution in your mind is to saddle the state with debt, in order to give people "free" education that will be paid for by future devalued dollars? And all of this will of course cause pressure on the private colleges (which might actually be a plan), and cause economic hardships on them. And that makes sense to you because?
How is this any different than a voucher program for public schools that I'm pretty sure you oppose?
Again, doesn't change anything other than letting students to go to college debt free and having their tuition be paid back on a sliding scale so that everyone is able to pay for the degree they earned.
Now you are just arguing against it just for the sake of arguing.
Its not debt free.. Owing an obligation isnt debt free. It may not be able to be calculated, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Bill Clinton, is that you?
How do you figure "more" money is a result? The state has to borrow around $9 BILLION to start the program, and at 3% of the yearly income, thats 75% of one years salary over 25 years..
And since its in future dollars, which will be about 1/2 of todays value, the state will be collecting about 37.5% of one years wages meaning that someone with a salary of $40K, would be paying about $20K for college to the state.
Since people now have about $40-$50K in loans, where do you think the balance will come from?
So government hasnt been able to keep the cost of education down, so the solution in your mind is to saddle the state with debt, in order to give people "free" education that will be paid for by future devalued dollars? And all of this will of course cause pressure on the private colleges (which might actually be a plan), and cause economic hardships on them. And that makes sense to you because?
How is this any different than a voucher program for public schools that I'm pretty sure you oppose?
That is what already happens now when one takes out loans from the state to pay for college.
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.
It may not be able to be calculated, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Bill Clinton, is that you?
