This presidential election cycle will likely continue the growing discussion around higher-ed, loans, and student debt.
I’ve been trying to parse out what folks are saying and proposing. One thing I’m concerned with is the difference in interest that students pay versus what banks pay when borrowing from the government. It would be nice if the banks paid a higher interest rate than students. Don’t you think?
I’m also on the look out for anything that leaves the universities themselves off the hook. If the universities do not have skin in the game, then anything we do will look like a government subsidy for universities to keep jacking up the tuition costs. For example, I think eligibility for loans should be tied to payback and performance. That is, graduation rates, employment rates, and payback rates of students should reflect back on the school they attended. Make this transparent and schools will be negatively impacted for poor performance. They will work to make sure students graduate, get jobs, and payback the loans.
The good news is that this kind of thinking is part of the discussion, so I will be tracking this thread closely. See the comment below in a Politico article related to Clinton’s new higher-ed proposal. The article references Obama’s push for accountability in for-profit schools.
He also questioned why if Clinton is interested in getting all schools to provide a quality education she doesn’t endorse gainful employment standards for all sectors of education. The regulation requires career training programs to track their graduates’ performance in the workforce and eventually will cut off funding for those that fall short. [Source: Hillary Clinton’s $350 billion plan to kill college debt]
