Dumbest Columnist on the Planet Tries to Build Bridges, Ends up Burning Them (College Costs):

[HughBeaumont]

A 2% solution to a host of college problems: Kevin O'Brien:

This is his grand solution to curbing college costs that's designed to please the commie lib'ruls . . . I think . . .

http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2014/08/a_2_solution_to_a_host_of_coll.html#incart_opinion

A much more effective way to attack the problem would be to ensure that colleges have some skin in the game — the more, the better — by paying them after the fact and allowing the marketplace to determine the worth of a college education, one graduate at a time.

snip

The incoming freshman would agree to repay the college for his or her higher education at a fixed percentage of the student's gross earnings for a fixed number of years. Say, 2 percent of income for 25 years.

The problem of crushing student debt is immediately solved. When the student graduates and gets that first job at what should be the lowest earning level of his professional life, he will also face the lowest college repayment level: 2 percent of very little is very, very little. Twenty-five years later, when the former student is the executive VP of a multinational company, 2 percent of a whole lot will still be a very reasonable price for the happy graduate to pay and a tidy raw-dollar sum indeed for Dear Old State U.

snip

First, the college has to choose wisely. If it contracts with marginal students who lack direction or motivation, it's likely to lose money on them. Then, the college has to make sure students don't lose their way during school. It has to make sure they learn truly useful things well. As graduation nears, the college is motivated to help the student land the best possible job at the best possible pay. It may even find ways to support the employed graduate with information and connections that make him a better (and better-paid) employee.

snip

Colleges and universities would be quick to eliminate courses, majors, even entire academic departments that offered insufficient return on investment. Some colleges and universities, finding themselves unable to compete, would disappear. That is not a bad thing. America is way over-colleged, hence the expensive, wasteful competition on creature comforts to lure freshmen, since the quality of undergraduate education is pretty much the same everywhere.

Once colleges eliminate departments and majors that don't move graduates into jobs worth a college education, businesses will recover the skills of screening their own applicants. That would put an end to Americans' patently ludicrous notion that every job more exalted than fast-food worker requires a degree.

OK, so from what I'm reading:

Colleges are corporate farm clubs.
Public money going to colleges are a bad thing (as opposed, of course, to public money going in the pockets of the Kochs) that cause tuitions to rise. Yeah.
The Arts and Social Sciences mean shiznit because they're not economically quantifiable, so we should just get rid of them.
STEM, Business and Finance Majors are the only things worth studying; everything else is just a hobby.
In 25 years, it's guaranteed that a college graduate will be an executive VP.
Every kid at the age of 18-19 knows EXACTLY what they want to do.
You wouldn't need 25 years of funding to pay professors NOW or anything.
Our job markets are ALWAYS awesome and accommodating to those with college degrees and those without.

[KurtNYC]

1. College is archaic and overpriced

The highest paid employees are football coaches with salaries that go to $5 million per year. Educators make less than 1/20th of that.

College is ultimately about credentials. You pay and pass tests to get college's brand on your resume, and that brand, in the USA, often has a lot to do with how good the football or basketball team is, or with connecting graduating students with alumni who share the same brand.

College has no monopoly on post high school education. There are many modes for entering career paths and getting the experience, skills and knowledge required. We should honor some of those methods and direct more young people to the paths that best suit their goals.

[Half-Century Man]

3. To counter this

Make it illegal to televise any collegiate sporting event (you may announce scores during news events). Publicly financed college for all who want to continue school.

[calimary]

7. I actually love this! I'm sorry - this sports hard-on we have in this country just drives me crazy.

It's SO damn disproportionate. It's as though brawn HAS to override brain, even in institutions where brain is supposed to be what it's all about.

The TEACHERS should be the highest-paid. NOT the fucking coaches. What the hell??!??!?!?!?!! I saw that in my son's high school. They needed money for all kinds of legitimate scholastic/academic-related things, but man-oh-man, the alumni sure stepped up to buy them a fucking Jumbotron for the football field.



That's when I stopped donating to the school. They're obviously not interested in my contributions anyway. Because I don't want my contributions going to the sports department or the damn football team. I want my contributions going toward the ARTS AND LETTERS. To the young writers, painters, actors, language majors, science majors, history majors, math majors. THAT is what school is supposed to be for, at least in my opinion.

[Half-Century Man]

8. Think about it to get some perspective.

Unknown Greek and Roman sculptors worked bronze and stone into shapes which were lost at sea, buried in volcanic eruptions, used as filler material in construction projects, buried in earthquakes, and sometimes kept on display for a couple thousand years. We, find , restore, display and treasure even small pieces of those works of art.

I am unaware of any sport record that has lasted even 100 years.

Sports are fleeting, art lasts.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Paying the institution after the fact is absurd, but a few States including my own are considering

'Pay It Forward' programs that have some elements of what this guy is talking about. Of course, our plan involves the State paying the tuition until the cycle of repayment catches up with the outlay, so the schools would get paid now, but the student would not pay until later, using a 20 3% contribution from earnings. So during the first 20 years, the State would be paying out many millions a year to make this work. It might be worth it....

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2014/06/oregons_tuition-free_pay_it_fo.html

[DetlefK]

4. My cousin studied finance. Then the recession happened.

He had excellent grades and specialized on international investment-banking. But just as he graduated the recession happened and suddenly he was up against shit-tons of people with years of experience on the job.

He was unemployed for 3 years before he found a job as a teacher.

So, when exactly will he be VP?

[Paladin]

5. Reducing colleges to industrial arts factories? No thank you. (nt)

[PowerToThePeople]

6. I am not totally against that idea

All the risk is taken on by the student at this time. Paying a set percentage of income over time would set the ROI for the education the same for everyone. That has some very good merit in my book.