4 ms·

Good. This does exactly what Nasim Taleb argues and forces the college to have "skin in the game." Education needs this sort of revamp badly. Government medd

Good. This does exactly what Nasim Taleb argues and forces the college to have "skin in the game." Education needs this sort of revamp badly. Government meddling with student loan guarantees caused the price inflation, more government meddling won't solve the problem. The system needs a reboot, and this sounds like exactly what it needs. Don't pay unless you make over 50k, awesome. Payback lasts 2-3 years, awesome! I'm sure there are nitty gritty details, but this sounds like the model we need. As far as less profitable majors or high risk individuals, they can remain in the traditional system and pay up front. You don't have to totally scrap everything else. If you truly want to study Russian literature that's fine, stay in a traditional system, but don't force the rest of us to accept it just because you want to be a special butterfly edge case. We should not be catering to those types. Eliminate guaranteed federal loans and the price of those majors would come way down anyways. If you truly want to preserve some niche program, some strategic investments on the schools part could set up something that returns enough money to allow a handfull of true scholars who do well but are too poor to pay up front still attend and get their niche major. You may even see the emergence of a school that has radical teaching methods that turn high risk students into earners. Probably a system you can't even fathom yet which involves some level of psychology and counseling along with your education to get you to the finish line.

omegaworks 8y ago
>Good. This does exactly what Nasim Taleb argues and forces the college to have "skin in the game." This philosophy operates under the assumption that colleges should be beholden to an economic system that values individuals solely for their ability to grow existing capital. It's a recipe for cultural stagnation. Where do we develop entirely new modes of thought and expression [and potential new sources of wealth] if we deprioritize every activity other than those that optimize for the growth of existing wealth?
voidhorse 8y ago
This "special butterfly edge case" == anyone who wants to specialize in the humanities attitude will probably lead to a bleak future. Life does not begin and end with technics nor economics. Supporting the continued interest in the historical, artistic, cultural, literary and philosophical development of mankind and likewise supporting the preservation of these fields shouldn't be seen as 'catering to those types'. If you'd like to live in a world devoid of art, culture, and history, but efficient, logical, and completely determined to the apex, be my guest; it sounds like tons of fun. If these systems are to be adopted nationwide they'll have to figure out a reasonable way to fund studying the humanities for more than just 'a handfull[sic] of true scholars'. Traditions and whole fields of disciplines don't live and die off the progress of a few geniuses--they are worldwide human endeavors sustained by a complex of economic, political, and pedagogical interests. Maybe that means this sort of model is only fit for 'trades', but eliminating support for the humanities wholesale wouldn't work.
- leereeves 8y ago
  An Income Sharing Agreement (with a max tuition much higher than $30K) would be great for high-risk fields like the arts and humanities. A percentage of earnings from a single George Lucas or JK Rowling would finance the school while the vast majority of students would pay nothing.

omegaworks 8y ago

>Good. This does exactly what Nasim Taleb argues and forces the college to have "skin in the game." This philosophy operates under the assumption that colleges should be beholden to an economic system that values individuals solely for their ability to grow existing capital. It's a recipe for cultural stagnation. Where do we develop entirely new modes of thought and expression [and potential new sources of wealth] if we deprioritize every activity other than those that optimize for the growth of existing wealth?

voidhorse 8y ago

This "special butterfly edge case" == anyone who wants to specialize in the humanities attitude will probably lead to a bleak future. Life does not begin and end with technics nor economics. Supporting the continued interest in the historical, artistic, cultural, literary and philosophical development of mankind and likewise supporting the preservation of these fields shouldn't be seen as 'catering to those types'. If you'd like to live in a world devoid of art, culture, and history, but efficient, logical, and completely determined to the apex, be my guest; it sounds like tons of fun. If these systems are to be adopted nationwide they'll have to figure out a reasonable way to fund studying the humanities for more than just 'a handfull[sic] of true scholars'. Traditions and whole fields of disciplines don't live and die off the progress of a few geniuses--they are worldwide human endeavors sustained by a complex of economic, political, and pedagogical interests. Maybe that means this sort of model is only fit for 'trades', but eliminating support for the humanities wholesale wouldn't work.

leereeves 8y ago
An Income Sharing Agreement (with a max tuition much higher than $30K) would be great for high-risk fields like the arts and humanities. A percentage of earnings from a single George Lucas or JK Rowling would finance the school while the vast majority of students would pay nothing.