3 ms·
Honestly, I think students should pay different amounts based on the infrastructure they need for their degree. New students pay some flat amount, and once they
by beatgammit 7y ago
Honestly, I think students should pay different amounts based on the infrastructure they need for their degree. New students pay some flat amount, and once they declare a major, they pay whatever that major costs. A lit major won't require much infrastructure, so they should pay less than an engineering student that needs access to more expensive equipment, but they'll also likely get a lower salary after college. Students should likewise be presented with estimated salaries upon graduation, as well as estimated cost of their education (including books and whatnot).
Colleges that are more prestigious in a given field should be able to command a higher tuition, which helps pay for faculty, buildings, and equipment. But the higher rate needs to be justified by the school on their estimated costs and future earnings reports. Banks could take all of this into account when deciding whether to grant a loan to a student.
And yes, the school shouldn't be forcing students to pay for athletics, theatre, etc. Athletics often pay for themselves through advertising agreements and merch, so I don't see why anything should be taken from tuition for that (and I don't think it is most of the time).
So yes, education expenses should be ala carte as much as possible, and I think this (and ending federally backed student loans) would result in drastically reduced tuition prices on average as students see what value they're really getting.