This is an interesting idea and generates a lot of questions. How does this change the dynamic of 'going back to school' for an alternative degree? If the doma

This is an interesting idea and generates a lot of questions. How does this change the dynamic of 'going back to school' for an alternative degree? If the domain I initially studied starts hurting economically and I have to get a different degree, do I still owe the school for my initial degree if I get a job that meets the income threshold off my second degree? How do we determine which degree netted me my current job? (assuming I get the new degree and a job within the N year period during which I owe the initial institution a percentile of my income). Am I able to 'pay out' at any time? Or, if I get a better paying job, does the institutions paycheck increase if I'm still in the payback time interval? Do I simply need to pay the pay cap? Should I be comfortable with the notion that my institution is x% responsible for my wage-earnings and overall economic worth? Are there situations in which this isn't the case? Does this change promote student assessments that are better or worse for the edification of the next generation? As the article states, would schools be tempted not to bother with 'high-risk' students? What does it mean to put a label like 'high-risk' on a student? What does it mean to treat a human being like an investment? Does this reduce interest in students to purely economic terms (a big part of how universities already conceive of their students today, but reputation to some degree still factors in)? Would such a model further exacerbate the gap between the wealthy and poor—would wealthy kids, who grow up in environments that promote study and make them 'low-risk' investments (likely to succeed) have an unfair advantage over kids growing up in poor households? This also seems to imply that one's learning is the majority of what factors into one's getting a job. What about all the additional work it takes to get a job (networking, etc.) Will these institutions assist in these areas as well? What of the notion of scholarship? Is it absent in this model? Does this model actually work for all disciplines? Arguably, it creates a very tight coupling between the 'value' of an education and wage-earnings/income. What of those pursuits that seem to be valuable, in a different light and aren't (today) usually high-income generators ,e.g. the study of history, literature, and cultures, for instance. What will happen to those disciplines under this model? Is this a model that's more appropriate for trades and not all areas of education? Seems like a very good change, potentially, but it will probably a lot of effects if its adopted nationwide, on both an economic and cultural level.