Originally Posted by Wren
Adding to the debate between Val and Dad22, why not provide debt forgiveness if you get a degree that has long term benefits to the economy and gives back, like civil engineering or biotech.

If you get an A average on graduation from engineering, you get 100% student debt forgiveness, B is 80%. If you take a liberal arts degree, you keep your debt. Like we need police, but we don't necessarily need public decorations at holiday time. The latter is nice but is a cost for prettiness not safety. Treat degree outcomes instead of upfront tuition benefits.

Why wouldn't this work? Then we get people trained for things we need, not just are pretty.


What I see as the primary problem with this is that grade-grubbing is ALREADY really horrible in post-secondary. Students won't WORK harder, but they'll surely whine a lot harder. LOL. It'll also simply increase pressure on STEM departments/colleges and push people who are actually mediocre or worse to stick with majors they are completely unsuited for.

Oregon is actually toying with an idea which amounts to the same thing (in terms of the repayment/intent)--
Oregon plan for tuition-free "pay it forward" higher education

but even this is not without its critics:

College tuition plan punishes graduate success (which I have to say, I find more than a bit ridiculous, since its an investment by definition on both sides, and the taxpayers are certainly going to "lose" at least as often as they "win" and without the 'free' college, then a lot of those successful graduates won't go to college to begin with, or will be so larded up with debt that they NEVER contribute meaningfully to the consumer economy... and really, nobody is claiming that those wealthy enough to do so cannot just-- go to an elite college out of state. Whatever, you know?)

I think this is a reasonably cogent view of this kind of plan:

Why free college isn't enough, though I ultimately disagree with his perspective that "college is a universal good." I see it as a hybrid benefitting BOTH society at large (and its economy) and the individual. If it WERE completely individual, then our current system would make complete sense. On the other hand, complete subsidization would make sense if it weren't. I also think that the author makes a hash of it by ignoring the fact that STEM graduates cost more to educate than liberal arts ones. That is simply the case. You can't teach a senior lab in optics without equipment-- expensive equipment. You can on the other hand, teach a senior course in literature with little more than a classroom space and standard access to infrastructure.



STEM students are actually considerably more expensive to train in the first place, so it makes sense to me that their "cost" is higher to the taxpayer, but their repayment rate is ALSO higher. That actually seems completely fair.






Last edited by HowlerKarma; 01/09/14 09:10 AM. Reason: clarification
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.