5 ms·

So you get an education for free, then pay back into the system after you're in the workforce? Congratulations, silicon valley, you've just re-invented public

So you get an education for free, then pay back into the system after you're in the workforce? Congratulations, silicon valley, you've just re-invented public education! Imagine what our public universities could look like with solid funding increases (which would be a fraction of that 17% that this group wants to take). They could be both free and amazing.

mcherm 8y ago
> Congratulations, silicon valley, you've just re-invented public education! There is a key difference. With public education, the excess cost of the education is born equally by ALL taxpayers. With education that is funded by a percentage of future income rather than a fixed up-front cost, that is born only by the graduates. It means that those not fortunate enough to attend college (or not interested) are not expected to subsidize the students, and it also means that students can choose from a range of different qualities (and costs) of school. Also the original article spoke at length about aligning the incentives of the school and the student. If you believe (I do not) that the only or most important role of a school is to prepare the student for a more lucrative job, then this alignment of incentives is a significant value of its own.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Also, it's voluntary. Taxation is involuntary.
austenallred 8y ago
The 17% is capped at $30k and only happens if the student gets a job that pays $50k+. If the student doesn’t get a job that pays $50k+ the school makes $0. If universities had that tuition plan they would be bankrupt.
- marcc 8y ago
  Or, instead of bankrupt, they would likely focus on degrees that were marketable in the current economy. I feel that this option would really reduce the number students in some degree programs that aren't directly employable, or at least not at high wages. Universities could offer this today in some programs (CS, medicine, law, etc). But what about arts programs? Music? Are these employable enough to incentivize a University to to take a chance on students ability to repay?
- princekolt 8y ago
  That's effectively how tax brackets work in several countries that have a null tax rate for people in the lowest income bracket. So only after you reach the next bracket you start paying any income tax.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jerf 8y ago
"Imagine what our public universities could look like with solid funding increases" The reason we're having this conversation in the first place is precisely the "funding increases" they've been experiencing. If this isn't enough "funding increase" for them: https://rpreschern.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/college-tuition-inflation-is-outrageous.png https://rpreschern.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/college-tuiti... then I'd have to suggest "funding" is not their problem. What they'd look like with "solid funding increases" is pretty much what you're seeing right now.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zaroth 8y ago
  Thank you for posting this. As in healthcare, the problem isn’t so much the inability to pay as it is that costs spiraling out of control for no added value. Prices tend to do this is a supply constricted market when demand is artificially boosted by government subsidies.
peacetreefrog 8y ago
Pithy, but wrong.
hotpockets 8y ago
Yeah, I feel like this model is a form of private taxes that is more ripe for abuse. Just do it bigger and more efficient (and with transparency and oversight) with public education.
- mac01021 8y ago
  What kind of abuse?
danso 8y ago
Where is post-secondary education free in the U.S.?
- nsfmc 8y ago
  in california, you can apply to get your first year of community college free ( https://home.cccapply.org/money/california-college-promise-grant/terms https://home.cccapply.org/money/california-college-promise-g... ), there's an assembly bill ( http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... ) which would add a second year to that.
  - danso 8y ago
    To be clear, I’m a big fan of the value of community college, and I think one of the greatest shamed of our current education mentality is the status quo of getting into and paying for a 4-year university. Doing 2 years at a JUCO and transferring to a full university is a path that would save many students tens of thousands with little detriment to their education. That said, there’s still substantial differences between Lambda and a free year in college. For starters, if you have a poor GPA with a California Promise grant, it seems you have pay back the fees. Not sure what Lambda’s equivalent of a GPA is, but they don’t skim your salary if it’s below $50K. I think the more salient point is that the Lambda school has much more direct incentive to land you a good job, and ostensibly that incentive creates a stronger learning environment. Such direct incentive does not exist at a traditional state college, whether you’re paying tuition or getting a free year. This is all a long way of saying that, while I don’t think Lambda is going to significantly impact the student debt crisis (st least in the near future), to say that they’re just putting a SV spin on the old idea of public education is overly facile.
- chrisamiller 8y ago
  Very few places, but there's no reason that it couldn't be. Such a plan would have to come with some substantial changes/restrictions on colleges to help rein in the ballooning costs (e.g. lazy rivers, gourmet cuisine) that are pushing costs up dramatically.
ibeckermayer 8y ago
Public education is non-optional: when the public school systems suck, we still have to pay for them. Yes there is a democratic process to change that, but the average individual does not have much sway over that process and in effect it is much more difficult and sclerotic. If Lambda School begins to suck and isn't educating engineers to competency, they go out of business quickly. Voluntary vs involuntary funding is an incredibly important difference.

mcherm 8y ago

> Congratulations, silicon valley, you've just re-invented public education! There is a key difference. With public education, the excess cost of the education is born equally by ALL taxpayers. With education that is funded by a percentage of future income rather than a fixed up-front cost, that is born only by the graduates. It means that those not fortunate enough to attend college (or not interested) are not expected to subsidize the students, and it also means that students can choose from a range of different qualities (and costs) of school. Also the original article spoke at length about aligning the incentives of the school and the student. If you believe (I do not) that the only or most important role of a school is to prepare the student for a more lucrative job, then this alignment of incentives is a significant value of its own.

pitaj 8y ago
Also, it's voluntary. Taxation is involuntary.

austenallred 8y ago

The 17% is capped at $30k and only happens if the student gets a job that pays $50k+. If the student doesn’t get a job that pays $50k+ the school makes $0. If universities had that tuition plan they would be bankrupt.

marcc 8y ago
Or, instead of bankrupt, they would likely focus on degrees that were marketable in the current economy. I feel that this option would really reduce the number students in some degree programs that aren't directly employable, or at least not at high wages. Universities could offer this today in some programs (CS, medicine, law, etc). But what about arts programs? Music? Are these employable enough to incentivize a University to to take a chance on students ability to repay?
princekolt 8y ago
That's effectively how tax brackets work in several countries that have a null tax rate for people in the lowest income bracket. So only after you reach the next bracket you start paying any income tax.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jerf 8y ago

"Imagine what our public universities could look like with solid funding increases" The reason we're having this conversation in the first place is precisely the "funding increases" they've been experiencing. If this isn't enough "funding increase" for them: https://rpreschern.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/college-tuition-inflation-is-outrageous.png https://rpreschern.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/college-tuiti... then I'd have to suggest "funding" is not their problem. What they'd look like with "solid funding increases" is pretty much what you're seeing right now.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 8y ago
Thank you for posting this. As in healthcare, the problem isn’t so much the inability to pay as it is that costs spiraling out of control for no added value. Prices tend to do this is a supply constricted market when demand is artificially boosted by government subsidies.

peacetreefrog 8y ago

Pithy, but wrong.

hotpockets 8y ago

Yeah, I feel like this model is a form of private taxes that is more ripe for abuse. Just do it bigger and more efficient (and with transparency and oversight) with public education.

mac01021 8y ago
What kind of abuse?

danso 8y ago

Where is post-secondary education free in the U.S.?

nsfmc 8y ago
in california, you can apply to get your first year of community college free ( https://home.cccapply.org/money/california-college-promise-grant/terms https://home.cccapply.org/money/california-college-promise-g... ), there's an assembly bill ( http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... ) which would add a second year to that.
- danso 8y ago
  To be clear, I’m a big fan of the value of community college, and I think one of the greatest shamed of our current education mentality is the status quo of getting into and paying for a 4-year university. Doing 2 years at a JUCO and transferring to a full university is a path that would save many students tens of thousands with little detriment to their education. That said, there’s still substantial differences between Lambda and a free year in college. For starters, if you have a poor GPA with a California Promise grant, it seems you have pay back the fees. Not sure what Lambda’s equivalent of a GPA is, but they don’t skim your salary if it’s below $50K. I think the more salient point is that the Lambda school has much more direct incentive to land you a good job, and ostensibly that incentive creates a stronger learning environment. Such direct incentive does not exist at a traditional state college, whether you’re paying tuition or getting a free year. This is all a long way of saying that, while I don’t think Lambda is going to significantly impact the student debt crisis (st least in the near future), to say that they’re just putting a SV spin on the old idea of public education is overly facile.
chrisamiller 8y ago
Very few places, but there's no reason that it couldn't be. Such a plan would have to come with some substantial changes/restrictions on colleges to help rein in the ballooning costs (e.g. lazy rivers, gourmet cuisine) that are pushing costs up dramatically.

ibeckermayer 8y ago

Public education is non-optional: when the public school systems suck, we still have to pay for them. Yes there is a democratic process to change that, but the average individual does not have much sway over that process and in effect it is much more difficult and sclerotic. If Lambda School begins to suck and isn't educating engineers to competency, they go out of business quickly. Voluntary vs involuntary funding is an incredibly important difference.