3 ms·

Of course it's a zero sum game - the reward is coming from the tuition people pay. Disadvantaged students end up sponsoring the advantaged ones.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Sorry I don't follow. Can you elaborate a little please?
- samvher 4y ago
  The money has to come from somewhere. If person A (the person you responded to) and person B (someone who has no trouble attending all classes) both pay $1000 dollars tuition, and person B gets $200 back because of the incentive scheme, you could also have made tuition $900 for both of them. Net result is that person A (disadvantaged) pays $100 extra tuition and person B (advantaged) pays $100 less.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Your maths is sound, but by defining it as a closed system maybe you're missing the social dimensions, such as the "disadvantaged" student would now be "advantaged" by attending. The rebated money would mitigate their problems attending since money is an immediate and universal value whereas grades have specific and deferred value. It also misses the reality that university funding is complex. Students fees are one of many income streams which include industry, donors, alumni, government, property investment and a whole lot more.
    - samvher 4y ago
      If you think the money can come from outside of the system (a new source specifically and only for this purpose) by all means it sounds great, people paying less for school, and people being able to treat studying as a job that brings food on the table seems great. I think treating the system as closed is more realistic though, and in that case it’s redistributive i.e. zero sum. Edit - of course something I was missing in this comment is possibly increased efficiency inside the system. It’s thinkable that higher average attendance would result in higher pass rates and lower educational costs. If that turns out to be a significant effect it might not be zero sum (though I’d personally still not favor such a system for reasons I mentioned in a different comment).

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Sorry I don't follow. Can you elaborate a little please?

samvher 4y ago
The money has to come from somewhere. If person A (the person you responded to) and person B (someone who has no trouble attending all classes) both pay $1000 dollars tuition, and person B gets $200 back because of the incentive scheme, you could also have made tuition $900 for both of them. Net result is that person A (disadvantaged) pays $100 extra tuition and person B (advantaged) pays $100 less.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Your maths is sound, but by defining it as a closed system maybe you're missing the social dimensions, such as the "disadvantaged" student would now be "advantaged" by attending. The rebated money would mitigate their problems attending since money is an immediate and universal value whereas grades have specific and deferred value. It also misses the reality that university funding is complex. Students fees are one of many income streams which include industry, donors, alumni, government, property investment and a whole lot more.
  - samvher 4y ago
    If you think the money can come from outside of the system (a new source specifically and only for this purpose) by all means it sounds great, people paying less for school, and people being able to treat studying as a job that brings food on the table seems great. I think treating the system as closed is more realistic though, and in that case it’s redistributive i.e. zero sum. Edit - of course something I was missing in this comment is possibly increased efficiency inside the system. It’s thinkable that higher average attendance would result in higher pass rates and lower educational costs. If that turns out to be a significant effect it might not be zero sum (though I’d personally still not favor such a system for reasons I mentioned in a different comment).