<p>Wondering on some opinions to the UC syytem:
Fix</a> UC: UC Student Investment Proposal</p>
<p>Under this proposal, UC student would pay $0 in tuition up front, but would then contribute 5% of their income after graduation to the UC for 20 years of employment. Mark Yudof is reported to support the proposal.</p>
<p>Hm. What could possibly go wrong with this?</p>
<p>What about students who work hard and get scholarships? What do you do with that money? What about poor students who need help with living expenses that are usually covered by loans/grants until they can get a full time job post-graduation? What about parents who have saved so that they can send their children to school for 4 years? What about students who work hard during school (someone like me who works 30+ hours a week) so that they can graduate with minimal loans that can be paid off quickly? What about those students who are going to lower ranked undergrad schools so that they can graduate with no debt and then comfortably take on debt for medical school and such? Do you just add an additional 5% on to those loans despite the fact that they could have graduated with very little or no debt? What incentive would there be to graduate in 4 years? What is to stop students from sticking around for 5, 6, or more years? What if a person CHOOSES not to work after undergrad (such as someone who chooses to be a stay-at-home parent)? Do they just get a free education and provide nothing back to the state?</p>
<p>I think it’s nice as an option- but mandatory? No, absolutely not. You’re taking away the option of graduating with little to no debt for those who can afford it (either with parents’ help, scholarships, or their own hard work).</p>
<p>I’m not endorsing or condemning the proposal.</p>
<p>“What incentive would there be to graduate in 4 years? What is to stop students from sticking around for 5, 6, or more years?”
You would think that the UC has the incentive to get people out in 4 years - the longer that person stays in school, the longer they are not working post-graduation and therefore the slower the $ UC will make.</p>
<p>“What if a person CHOOSES not to work after undergrad (such as someone who chooses to be a stay-at-home parent)? Do they just get a free education and provide nothing back to the state?”
I suppose that would be right - they get a free education, but they aren’t making any money for themselves with what they were educated in either.</p>
<p>Sorry the “you” was at the proposal. I should have clarified :).</p>
<p>How are they going to collect the money? Are they going to be collecting copies of a million tax returns every year to verify the payments are correct? How much is it going to cost to chase down 100,000+ people every year (student loan default rates are 15%, I don’t see why this would be any different).</p>
<p>How do you define income?</p>
<p>College costs increase at 2-3x inflation, which means in 20 years the %age will need to be 10% instead of 5%. I didn’t see this addressed in the docs anywhere.</p>
<p>A large number of students in CA attend for free or pay reduced tuition. I don’t think they are going to stand by quietly about a proposal that takes a large amount of money out of their pockets.</p>
<p>The infaltion is a good point. The proposal states 5% on income over 20 years of employment (I guess that means if you work for 5 years, then lose your job you still owe 15 years of 5% income employment to them), but 20 years of inflation would make that 5% fixed rate worth a whole lot less to the tax payers.</p>
<p>As far as collection, it doesn’t seem too farfetched that the UC system can be in cahoots with both CA tax returns and federal returns. My concern would then come into play with international or foreign students who may return to their home country after getting their education and thus possibly falling off the radar of income verification. This may also apply to those who would cheat on their taxes and end up paying a whole lot less to the system than they should be.</p>
<p>Appearently, there are some bugs to work out.</p>
<p>This just wouldn’t work. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>It creates an immediate cash flow problem for the UCs. </p></li>
<li><p>Assuming an average $50,000 income for a student over 20 years (optimistic), at $1,000,000 total, the student would have paid back at 5% only $50,000. Tuition and room and board for four years is roughly $100,000 and increasing.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Room and board adds 0.65% per year for 10 years. This doesn’t come close to covering the cost of R+B.</p>
<p>OOS+ International pay 6%. You get a discount of 0.5% for living in CA after graduation.</p>
<p>
So if you drop out you suddenly have to come up with years’ worth of tuition?</p>