Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education

More Colleges Try Forgoing Tuition For A Percentage of Future Income (yahoo.com) 180

"Some innovative colleges, in partnership with private investors and a small number of philanthropies, are experimenting with a new financing model called 'income share agreements' or 'ISAs,'" reports Yahoo Finance: With an ISA, instead of assuming a fixed debt obligation, students simply agree to pay an affordable percentage of their future income over a set time period, subject to an overall cap. High earners will have larger payments than low earners, but all will have an affordable payment, based on what they will actually be making. Importantly, when the college is providing some or all of the funding for the ISA, its return will be aligned with its students' post-college earnings, giving it economic incentives to make sure its students both graduate and find jobs. The college is, literally, invested in its students' success...

With ISAs, there is no principal or interest. Thus, they are much better suited for low income students as their financial obligations never exceed their ability to pay... In a recent paper commissioned by the Manhattan Institute, we looked at the small but growing number of colleges and universities offering ISA programs. Indiana's Purdue University launched the first such program in 2016. About a dozen other institutions have now followed suit, including Lackawanna College in Pennsylvania, Clarkson University in New York, and the University of Utah. Most of these pioneers offer ISAs to students as an alternative to non-subsidized federal loans, though a few are offering them as a complete substitute for borrowing... A common feature of all these ISA programs is that they require payments only when the graduate meets a certain income threshold. All impose time limits and caps on the total amount that needs to be repaid, though they differ widely in where they set those caps and limits.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Colleges Try Forgoing Tuition For A Percentage of Future Income

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kokuyo ( 549451 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @05:38AM (#58364802) Journal

    If someone's success depends on your success, chances are they're going to help you actually succeed.

    Let's see how this works out.

    • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @05:58AM (#58364848)

      If someone's success depends on your success, chances are they're going to help you actually succeed.

      Let's see how this works out.

      Your (financial) success (as a business) depending on the success of your graduates is a principle that should be applied to all for-profit schools because currently their business model seems to be to trick students into life long debt slavery in return for a truly useless bargain basement education.

      • by geekoid ( 135745 )

        The education isn't useless. There is more use then 'money'.

        And there is no trick.

        But great, lets motivate college away from the Arts. That's not stupid at all.

      • That is one way of putting it, but when they students actually start having to pay money, you can be sure their will be quite a few very vocal ones about how they were tricked into paying far more for an education than they otherwise would have and they cannot even afford an apartment with what is left over and they are living on the streets or out of their car because of this financial burden that they were tricked into.

        then you will have all the people complaining that they don't offer woman's studies cla

    • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @06:06AM (#58364864) Homepage Journal

      This has been happening in the UK for a couple of decades, basically a loan that you only repay once you are earning. I am still paying mine off.

      A lot of people are headed for having it written off due to not earning enough in the 25 year time limit. There is also the issue of people going overseas and not paying it back.

      It used to be a good deal when the interest rates were fixed at a low level, but now it's not nearly as attractive.

      • by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        But there seems to be no interest involved here.

      • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Informative)

        by parkinglot777 ( 2563877 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @08:32AM (#58365246)

        It is bad as you said in the UK, but it is a different type of loan compared to this ISA. The ISA loan has fixed terms that has nothing to do with interest. The main term is to pay back at a certain percentage of the current annual income for a fixed period of time. As a result, the eligible amount loan will depend on the possible minimum annual salary after graduation from a selected program. There could be some more additional terms, such as the loaner may not need to pay back at all after not being able to find a job for a certain continuous period of time, there is a cap for the total pay back and the loaner can stop paying once the pay back hits the cap, etc.

        Besides, the issue about going out of the country and not paying back is not likely to be in the U.S. Europeans can easily leave their home country and go to work in another European countries. As a result, these people don't pay taxes back to their home country (and not paying back the student loan because no income shows up in the home country). In the U.S., people simply move to another state. However, the loan system covers the whole nation, so it is not likely to be a major issue.

        Your example is legit, but it doesn't apply to the type of loan (ISA) and the boundary in the U.S.

        • The main difference with ISAs would seem to be that the loan is effectively from the school. With regular student loans, either the bank (i.e. the people who own stock in the bank) or the government (i.e. the taxpayers) have to eat the loss if the loan isn't repaid. With an ISA, it's the school which eats the loss. So nobody except the student/school should care if a student defaults on an ISA. It only affects the financial status of the school if too many of their graduates begin defaulting. It doesn't
      • This has been happening in the UK for a couple of decades, basically a loan that you only repay once you are earning.

        This is NOT the same as an ISA. The key point of an ISA is that you pay a fixed percentage of your income for a fixed amount of time. This means that high earners pay far more than their education costs and low earners pay far less. The UK system is a loan where, once a high earner has paid it off, they no longer pay anything more. As the article points out this has the effect of cancelling out the investment risk from low earners because high earners will pay a lot more back than the cost of their educati

    • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by idji ( 984038 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @06:09AM (#58364870)
      This is similar to HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme), how Australians have payed for University since 1991, and payed back through taxes after you start earning.
      What is interestingly different here is that those with better paying jobs pay more under ISA, and that could lead to discrimination against students who are studying courses that pay less in jobs.
      https://www.studyassist.gov.au... [studyassist.gov.au]
      • Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kokuyo ( 549451 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @06:44AM (#58364920) Journal

        But that is a good thing, isn't it? Either those types of jobs are needed so it behooves employers to pay accordingly or they are not and it makes little sense to waste a human mind to it.

        • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @07:29AM (#58365018)

          It really isn't. It is propagating a very well-known market failure, which tax-funded research is supposed to rectify. Fundamental science is, for example, a field that is traditionally underfunded by the markets and the reason is that the returns from understanding basic physics are very small in the short run, although nearly immeasurable in the long term, so the "investment" and pay are very low.

          If you validate this with your funding scheme, you're doing the opposite of what you should.

          • Research and education really, because both are tightly linked.

          • This is sort of besides the point. We do not see many individuals advancing science. Taking out a loan, getting a Physics degree, and then improving our knowledge of the universe.

            Science nowadays mostly seems to take billions of dollars. So even if this caused far less physics students to be produced, we get more money for research possibly as we are no longer spending as much teaching millions of future car salesmen physics, and quite possibly more talented and skilled group of physicists to draw research

        • You think it's a good thing for everybody in the world to become an investment banker or similar economic parasite, and everything else (such as actually making things, researching or teaching) is a waste because it pays less?

        • Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Insightful)

          by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday April 01, 2019 @11:55AM (#58366270) Homepage Journal

          The Arts. English, writing, these are all needed for a healthy society.

          Motivating college to focus only on high paying career fields means things that make life beautiful will be forgotten.

    • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @06:51AM (#58364930)

      There are some big questions to this.
      I got my masters degree from an another school then my undergrad degree. Who is to say how much of my salary is from my undergrad education and how much from my masters.

      A student after a year or two determines that they don’t like that school and switch. Or fail out and one they matured they went to an other school.

      Or the cases of the Billionaire college dropouts like Bill Gates, who realized they could make more money with their own business then wasting more time at school.

      This method is hiding the fact the College Education is too expensive and a way to make college administrators lives easier by not finding area to save money. Such as not keeping on building new building but utilizing the space they have.

      • Indeed - there are many details to sort out. One possible compromise would be something like X% of your annual salary for the first Y years after graduation, per year of school. Graduate from a 4-year program, pay 4X%. Leave after 2 years, pay 2X%. Go on to a different graduate school - the Y-years counter doesn't start until you graduate from there.

    • Two words why it's not going to work out:

      Private investors.
    • I'm not so sure. Current student debt issuers would have the same incentive after all, and they aren't especially helpful. Instead they look to the government to uphold special privileges for them when it comes to collection.
      • >Current student debt issuers would have the same incentive after all

        Not even remotely. Get a degree and be totally unable to find a job, and you're expected to pay off your student loan just the same as if you were making $1M/year. The debt issuers would surely rather you got a job that let you pay them off in a timely fashion - but as you pointed out, their preferential treatment means they'll probably get paid eventually no matter what. They have nothing to gain if you get a great job versus a medio

        • Exactly, that is what I meant by "special privileges". It's a somewhat tangled history, but a lot of the privileges were negotiated with the government in exchange for making more student loans available. Prior, loans to major in Art History were pretty sparse since that study path doesn't scream 'ability to repay in the future.' it wouldn't surprise anyone to hear that these universities would seek to have their financing options filed under the same sort of debt slavery rubric rather than pursue some sort
          • Again, you're overlooking the fact that under an ISA *THERE IS NO DEBT*. Debts must be repayed to the tune of a specific monetary amount (plus interest). An income sharing agreement has no such basis.

            Also, the reason student loans get extra privileges, in large part, is because hose loans are guaranteed by the government, and so the government wants to make it as hard as possible for you to default and leave them with the bill.

            Contrast to an ISA, where the government is not involved at all, and THERE IS NO

    • Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @09:55AM (#58365608) Homepage

      Money does not equal success. This will simply lead to pressuring students into more lucrative majors while completely neglecting the rest of the university. Might as well just open a trade school.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      It doesn't depend on their success. It's just a loan where you incur interest over the period of your education without having to make payments and you have to pay it back by a certain due date, they just have an agreement that once you have a job, they will start collecting direct from your paycheck.

    • Except the goal of the college then stops being to educate you, and becomes all about pushing you towards career goals that are lucrative for the college.

      That might be fine for some strictly vocational programs. If the whole point is to teach you a trade and then place you in a job, then getting paid based on the earnings at the job they've places you in makes a certain amount of sense. However, if we're talking about college for the purpose of higher education, it makes a lot less sense.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 01, 2019 @05:58AM (#58364850)

    this space intentionally left blank

  • Unless it covers all obligations to the college, it's just a money grab. Otherwise it's fine.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Doesn't end up that way

  • curious... that's all...
  • by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @06:28AM (#58364898)

    This article has a telling graph of how education has been moving out of reach for a large part of the US population
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news... [zerohedge.com]

    While some technological things have become much cheaper the relative cost of education has increased manifold.

    the student loan crisis is then just one aspect of this problem. It's the tip of the iceberg. I still see people focusing on the 'leeches' , people somehow abusing student loans. I'm sure that happens, but using such examples to represent the situation is entirely wrong. As is the solution which is presented in the article on here. The leeches are on the other side. They're the people getting rich off this.

    • by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @08:24AM (#58365198)

      Looking at averages also underestimates the seriousness of the problem because it disregards the distribution of income.
      When average income rises but mainly goes to a small minority, then the majority can actually have a lower income and they are even worse off.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      The government backing loans always leads to a bubble. Houses were increasing prices beyond their value due to banks having to give out loans at gunpoint to people that weren't qualified in the name of equality and social justice for all.

      Same is happening in schools, government is forcing massive debt on the economy by forcing loans for people that don't qualify (either by intelligence or degree) and don't have the means to repay it. The colleges just want to collect the money since they're not holding the

      • Oh so the system works much worse(on average!) than other countries who use a less capitalistic system because it is not capitalistic enough!
        I'm not going to defend my parent post since it lacks all nuance, but I read this https://www.theatlantic.com/ed... [theatlantic.com] and it does point to the capilist mechanisms

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      That's misleading. It only applies if you are sending your child to a private ivy league schools. Remove those from the equation and it's not nearly as bad as the chart misleads people into thinking.

      https://trends.collegeboard.or... [collegeboard.org]

      pssst: Ohms law is the same at community college as it is at MIT

  • Most $$ is made nefariously anyways :|
  • What percentage of Starbucks salary could they take?
  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @07:24AM (#58365004)

    This model will collapse when companies start offering a low salary for the agreed upon time period with a giant bonus to come after. It will also incentivize graduates to take low-income positions for the first few years (which may not be a bad thing for the graduates, but it will hurt the ISA programme). Unless subsidized, this programme will not be financially viable.

    People will always take the best approach for themselves, and companies will be more than happy to capitalize on that. Paying out a large bonus after X years is much better for the company; 40k for 3 years + a 45k bonus is better than 60k for 3 years for the company and guarantees a 3 year employee retention. The graduate that can be paid less at decent retention is more appealing than the graduate that wants a full salary right away and might leave at any moment for better opportunities.

    • by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Monday April 01, 2019 @08:35AM (#58365262)
      The model will die because if it fails early it just plain fails and if it is successful early on there will be colleges with a long term income stream ahead and current running costs, so they will be bought out by asset strippers who will keep the income and gut the rest of the university.
    • For the sake of argument, let's say that 20% is the affordable percentage mentioned in the article. Your basic assumption here is that people would rather make $32k (80% of $40k) per year rather than $80k (80% of 100k) per year.

      By all means, show us this huge group of people would would rather make $32k/year rather than $80k/year and explain how they rationalize this as being "the best approach for themselves."

      • And no... huge signing bonuses are not a standard thing and will not become a standard thing. There's too much risk to the employer of losing that money to someone who will move on ASAP and the salary agreement with universities would quickly be amended to cover those bonuses as well, so it would give no benefit to the employee over a steady salary.

      • I think their idea was more like get paid 33k for 3 years, plus a 100k "loyalty bonus" at the end of that time, for a total of 200k, where they only have to pay the ISA on the 100k salary. Rather than being paid 66k/year for the same 200k total, but having to pay the ISA on the full amount. Lower the salary a bit so that the employee and employer split the ISA savings, and everybody wins. Except...

        I really don't see such a thing catching on - firstly because the ISA agreement probably lasts at least 10+

    • Most of these ISAs have had repayment terms that go FAR beyond 3 years. Think more like 10 or 15 years. Even if the person were to take a lower paying job for the first X years, it wouldn't help them at all if they received a bonus at year X if X is anything less than the repayment term. They'd instead need to forgo higher pay for the full 10-15 years (or more), at which point you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone fresh out of school willing to lock themselves in for that long.

    • Maybe they'll only accept graduates stupid enough to NOT game the system in these ways?

      I entirely agree with you that this will be maneuvered around...cynically, I can see companies making this deal "we pay you little until the term is up then you get a balloon to your salary"...until just before the bell goes off, then you get let go BEFORE you get paid a decent $. Sorry.

      Don't think so? Companies already sort of do this to H1's..."we're getting you your visa, so we're going to pay you for shit during tha

  • student athletes should have this min salary pro sports league minimum

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They want to make you a wage slave, no better than perpetual leasing on a car. Sounds good because the human mind thinks monthly

    Everything the Government gets into gets more expensive. Housing in the 1930s from Fannie Mae Freddie Mac because "everyone should be a homeowner". Student tuition from WW2 on (GI Bill, and then student loans). Medicine from the late 1960s on (Medicare, Medicaid from LBJ's great society.)

    What basically happens is all this government credit inflates what people can pay monthly u

  • Overpriced, over the top, politicized non educations for liens on kids' lives.

    FOAD to any colleges and universities that can't deliver cost effective options with modern media.
  • Does payback apply if someone, er, "marries well"?
  • Not as if they will ever earn anything with that degree.

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      No degree earns anyone any money.

      It's what the person does with it that counts.

      So, shove your BS back up your ass.

  • Hot damn, somebody read The Unincorporated Man and thought 'Hmmmmmmâ¦..'
  • It sure as hell sounds like it.

    • by Amouth ( 879122 )

      Except your not working for "them" directly - rather in the market place.

      There is an aspect of this which i can see making schools act more in the student's best interest long term - by focusing on actual skills and job placement rather than keeping them enrolled for more "tuition"

      But there is a very very slippery slope on this one, and i'm sure it will go down with some slick lawyer....

  • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday April 01, 2019 @11:35AM (#58366122) Homepage Journal

    "Learn today, pay forever"

  • Indentured servitude is unconstitutional.
  • "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

    Wanting an education in a high tech economy is not a crime.
  • Isn't this called "workplace education"? The company trains you, and then it takes away a part of what you've created.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...