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.
I'm amazed at the number of developed countries that have figured out ways to make college tuition either free or low, and that the U.S. has gone in the other direction.
How will they keep the tax money from going to students who drop out of college after their bachelors (or even before)? We already have an epidemic in higher education where the we are seeing the lowest numbers in terms of percentages of students that complete college.
Should the people of Oregon want to pay for the higher education of students through taxation; great for them. But it would be a shame if most of those students drop out of college at some point before finishing.
I'm amazed at the number of developed countries that have figured out ways to make college tuition either free or low, and that the U.S. has gone in the other direction.
We have made college tuition free or low. Those who go to Princeton, Cooper Union, etc. will see the same level of competition in those other developed countries you speak of and will realize the same level of affordable tuition rates.
How will they keep the tax money from going to students who drop out of college after their bachelors (or even before)? We already have an epidemic in higher education where the we are seeing the lowest numbers in terms of percentages of students that complete college.
Should the people of Oregon want to pay for the higher education of students through taxation; great for them. But it would be a shame if most of those students drop out of college at some point before finishing.
It's not a tax when the only people paying it are the ones who have already received an education.
Yes, those students would get the free tuition, but I would think they will still pay forward, since that's the idea.
If there's any logic to this, those students would pay an adjusted percentage. So instead of 3 %, someone who dropped out after 1 year would only pay .75 % of their income back under this system.
Maybe someone who dropped out after 1 month, might be excused or something like that.
It's not a tax when the only people paying it are the ones who have already received an education.
They offering free degrees in fields that have some of the highest unemployment and lowest paying jobs. Do you really think that's a sensible thing to do? Do you want to encourage even more people to go into those fields?
What happens when they can't find a job and end up working flipping burgers? Is that going to pay the costs of their education? Seems to me this doomed to failure.
I don't think this "pay forward" plan is going to determine the major or career someone chooses.
No one is going to pick Philosophy to study simply because they may then have to pay forward less than an Engineering major.
I'm just going by what the article says, it's specifically mentions those fields and I quote .
Quote:
unable to translate their degree into a decent-paying job
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.
