next »

[petedondriac]

A friend introduced me to one of these direct marketing businesses whereby participants get returns on their work for as long as they live, or longer. I am still not convinced that it is nothing more than a legal pyramid scheme, but nevertheless, a potentially interesting idea popped into my head. What if we did something similar with education?

Imagine if an institution (Yale, MIT, or your local community college) decided to stop charging tuition, but instead get a percentage (1, 2, 5% ?) of the student's salary for some pre-determined time (1, 2, 5, 10 years??) after graduation?

The bean counters can figure out the exact numbers such that costs and revenues remain the same, at the start.  And also let's assume that somehow a way is found to get past the first few years when revenues are low and costs remain the same.

Imagine that the same would apply within the institution, at each faculty or department (medicine, law, French literature).  Just like in the current system, some departments would be more expensive to run, but would also generate more revenues, eventually.

I doubt that it could be taken down to the level of the individual educator because it would be hard to separate the effect of each course a student had taken, and besides, the curriculum ought to the a team effort. Perhaps faculty members could still be individually rewarded at the graduate school level, when instruction becomes more of an individual one-on-one mentoring relationship. In the current system, supervisors are interested in placing their Ph.D. students simply to build their own research networks, but under this new scenario, even a retiring faculty member would still be interesting in placing his last Ph.D. student in a good job soon after graduation.

The details can be worked out. The point is that educators, administrators and researchers would have a vested interest in the long-term success of graduating students. This long-term interest would be more than just wishful thinking (we all wish our students success) or pride in our accomplishments (and we are proud when they do well), but rather a tangible, financially reward for keeping our implicit promise (an education, an education at this institution, will provide you a brighter future).

It seems top me that currently we do our jobs to the best of out abilities, or to the degree to which we are motivated by our salary, and when they leave our doors, students are no longer our problem or concern. In the current system, we have short term motivators to supposedly accomplish long-term goals.

Any thoughts?? Thanks.

[voxprincipalis]

A friend introduced me to one of these direct marketing businesses whereby participants get returns on their work for as long as they live, or longer. I am still not convinced that it is nothing more than a legal pyramid scheme, but nevertheless, a potentially interesting idea popped into my head. What if we did something similar with education?

Imagine if an institution (Yale, MIT, or your local community college) decided to stop charging tuition, but instead get a percentage (1, 2, 5% ?) of the student's salary for some pre-determined time (1, 2, 5, 10 years??) after graduation?

The bean counters can figure out the exact numbers such that costs and revenues remain the same, at the start.  And also let's assume that somehow a way is found to get past the first few years when revenues are low and costs remain the same.

Imagine that the same would apply within the institution, at each faculty or department (medicine, law, French literature).  Just like in the current system, some departments would be more expensive to run, but would also generate more revenues, eventually.

I doubt that it could be taken down to the level of the individual educator because it would be hard to separate the effect of each course a student had taken, and besides, the curriculum ought to the a team effort. Perhaps faculty members could still be individually rewarded at the graduate school level, when instruction becomes more of an individual one-on-one mentoring relationship. In the current system, supervisors are interested in placing their Ph.D. students simply to build their own research networks, but under this new scenario, even a retiring faculty member would still be interesting in placing his last Ph.D. student in a good job soon after graduation.

The details can be worked out. The point is that educators, administrators and researchers would have a vested interest in the long-term success of graduating students. This long-term interest would be more than just wishful thinking (we all wish our students success) or pride in our accomplishments (and we are proud when they do well), but rather a tangible, financially reward for keeping our implicit promise (an education, an education at this institution, will provide you a brighter future).

It seems top me that currently we do our jobs to the best of out abilities, or to the degree to which we are motivated by our salary, and when they leave our doors, students are no longer our problem or concern. In the current system, we have short term motivators to supposedly accomplish long-term goals.

Any thoughts?? Thanks.

You're kidding, right?

Seriously, this is a joke, yes? Because otherwise it would make me want to stab myself with a rusty pointy tool.

VP

[theblondeassassin]

See current proposals by the UK's coalition government for Higher Education funding.

And pass the rusty fork when you're done, VP. Ooh, is that trifle on it? Shiny ...

[petedondriac]

I forgot one point, NO TUITION. Students would only pay afterwards, and universities would become more selective.

[polly_mer]

Why, that's a great idea, PeteDondriac.

After all, what we need is even more people partying through 4-8 years of free school instead of limiting the pool to people who have to make a bit of effort to raise the money for the privilege of trying college.  Let's make college ultracompetitive so that only the MIT's of the world exist to gut the community colleges and regional comprehensive universities where people can go for a while to learn something and then without graduating go out into the world.  Let's make higher education all about jobs and earning a buck instead of letting people explore their interests and get a liberal arts education if that's what they want out of life.  Let's be sure to doom people to failure because we as a society don't need nearly as many lawyers, high school teachers, and other professionals as would be churned out under such a program as the humanities folks try to place their students in the high-paying jobs that one can get with a humanities degree.  Let's encourage even more people to go to graduate school in the humanities in the hopes that our students would be the winners in the TT brass ring and be able to send back money from the Ivy League.

Yep, great idea, Pete.  I wonder why no one has ever thought of that before.

[petedondriac]

Knee-jerk reactions often miss the point, as the first 3 replies show. Why so angry and negative?!

The numbers of people and the money would still be the same, at the start. The motivation would be different, for both students and instructors.

Party animals will still exist and will still have to be regulated, but free tuition would open education to people from all economic backgrounds. Education is already about money, whether we like it or not. And lawyers already make more money than art history majors. Some people are already and will continue to be drawn to the humanities, and others to corporate law. In either case, students would still like and deserve the best possible preparation for their chosen profession, and the best possible remuneration. Even if you prefer basket weaving to corporate law, you still want to get as much as possible for your baskets.

Again, only the motivation is different. Universities would have a tangible long-term interest in their students' success.

Why, that's a great idea, PeteDondriac.

After all, what we need is even more people partying through 4-8 years of free school instead of limiting the pool to people who have to make a bit of effort to raise the money for the privilege of trying college.  Let's make college ultracompetitive so that only the MIT's of the world exist to gut the community colleges and regional comprehensive universities where people can go for a while to learn something and then without graduating go out into the world.  Let's make higher education all about jobs and earning a buck instead of letting people explore their interests and get a liberal arts education if that's what they want out of life.  Let's be sure to doom people to failure because we as a society don't need nearly as many lawyers, high school teachers, and other professionals as would be churned out under such a program as the humanities folks try to place their students in the high-paying jobs that one can get with a humanities degree.  Let's encourage even more people to go to graduate school in the humanities in the hopes that our students would be the winners in the TT brass ring and be able to send back money from the Ivy League.

Yep, great idea, Pete.  I wonder why no one has ever thought of that before.

[theblondeassassin]

I'm not angry and negative, I'm mildly sarcastic and pragmatic.

If you're really interested in the implications of a switch from lump-sum tuition to a direct (or indirect) graduate-tax, consider the empirical evidence available rather than trying to conduct vague thought-experiments.

[hipgeek]

How will party animals be regulated?  How do you distinguish between a party animal and a student who is withdrawing from classes due to issues more serious than mere laziness?

Also, many students take out loans beyond the cost of tuition to aid in augmenting their rent and cost of books.  What happens to them?

I'm all for making college more affordable but I don't think higher education programs inspired by pyramid schemes are the ideal solution.

[oldfullprof]

1.  Payment under this plan is too back loaded.  Years to get the first payments in.
2.  Education actually covers a positive externality.  It's not an investment in a given student.
3.  Ex-students would elude payment, perhaps by emmigrating.  It would also foster an off-the-books economy.
4.  It would overly incentivize education for lucrative careers.  (As others have said.)
5.  This has overtones of Motown Records at its worst.  I can see agents working for universities trying to collect.  I can just see the lawsuits stating that the education had no value.  Every scam that students use to duck student loan payments would be promoted in spades. 
6.  Economic downturns would affect colleges deeply.  Rather than be an "alternative employment" in down times, they would follow the economy in lockstep.  They probably have a Keynesian countercyclical effect now.  This would disappear, making the economy more vulnerable.
7.  This would hasten the "vocationalization" of college as non-lucrative majors would be downplayed by administrators. 

[concordancia]

What about people who become stay at home spouses? Do we just decide that their education was a waste of resources or do we charge their spouse?

If someone goes into the Peace Corp after graduation, do they become exempt from ever paying a percentage of their wages?

[zharkov]

I'd like to challenge the premise that higher education is exorbitantly expensive, thus needs some new funding scheme.  For strong students and/or those in professional fields with strong markets, things are fine.  The problem comes from those who -- to steal a title of the recent book -- are academically adrift.  I'm thinking of poor to middlin' students who go to poor to middlin' colleges, major in a field in which they lack passion and talent, and end up deeply in debt.   Perhaps they and they parents figure that college is somehow required, and they (the kids) do the minimum to get by.  Which means they have learned more or less nothing after four years and 25 or 50 or 100 grand in debt.
 

[petedondriac]

Dear blonde, if you are not interested in thinking, there is not need to get involved in the discussion. Is there such a thing as like non-empirical evidence?

There is no need to get too upset, the point its to explore the possibilities. I doubt any existing university would ever so something like this, but some minor policy changes might become evident after some discussion. On the other hand, some new, wealthy institutions, in some Arab countries and Kazakhstan, for example, are trying to create western-quality institutions, with radical new approaches, such as, for instance, no tuition and, in principle at least, creating long-term financial incentives for their faculty.

To address other issues…

Party animals exploiting the system and people with legitimate excuses would be regulated the same way they are regulated now, by keeping or placing the appropriate incentives and disincentives.

Students already take loans; nothing would happen to them.

And an idea ought to be judged for its potential, not for its source of inspiration, and no solution is ever ideal.

Old full professor shows age and full professorship comes with some wisdom and points out some serious economic consequences and difficulties of such a system. (1) Yes, there is a time lag, but there is no reason why it cannot be done in steps, or at newly created and well funded institutions. (3) Institutions already refuse transcripts or diplomas to students who do not settle their debts, even debts not related to academics, such as payments for their dormitories. (4) There is already an inventive for more lucrative careers, that would not change. (5) What happened in Motown Records? There is no need to collect when you can easily revoke people’s degrees. How come currently there are no lawsuits when students fail to get a decent job after spending tens of hundreds of thousands in an education? (6) Probably true, (7) lucrative fields are already favoured by administrators that would not change.

About full-time spouses. In the current system it could be argued that education carries many non-tangible benefits, and people who choose not use their degrees still benefit and still get their money’s worth. Or it could be argued that, as far as tangible benefits go, they just wasted their money. Or it could be argued that education allows you to move up the socio-economic ladder if only long enough to meet the right person. Take my case, my wife makes far more than I do, has a Ph.D. in pragmatic field, and an M.D., but I would have met her if I had not earned my Ph.D. even if my field is not as lucrative. So my education was worth it, even if tomorrow I decide to quit, stay at home and become a sculptor.

About going doing volunteer and charitable work, I do not know. What is the current situation? Do they use their skills but just choose not to get paid (much)? Do they consider their education to be a waste, at least financially? What percentage of people do this? Enough to make a dent in the system?

I'm not angry and negative, I'm mildly sarcastic and pragmatic.

If you're really interested in the implications of a switch from lump-sum tuition to a direct (or indirect) graduate-tax, consider the empirical evidence available rather than trying to conduct vague thought-experiments.

[prof_smartypants]

So you're suggesting we use a pyramid scheme as a model for higher education?

Super.

OK. So this idea. What problem exists that you are trying to solve?

In other words, what is faulty with the current system that makes you think that a change such as the one you are proposing is

a) warranted
b) productive.

Thank you.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

There is no need to get too upset, the point its to explore the possibilities. I doubt any existing university would ever so something like this,

I think her point is that this is already being considered in the UK university system.

I vaguely recall that somoene in the US (Yale?) had considered this a few years ago, and that there were articles on the plan here in the CHE.  Maybe someone whose search skills surpass mine can find the articles. - DvF

[zharkov]

Is there such a thing as like non-empirical evidence?

Yeah, it is called spectral evidence.  But is has been disallowed for about 300 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence