and it doesn't saddle taxpayers with the funding, like many student loans are
Yeah, that's also a good point. Makes it that much more of a win for everyone involved: sensible repayment plan for the student, reasonable ROI for the investor, the schools get their tuition (which are frankly too fucking inflated thanks to the student loan system, but - whatever), and the taxpayer isn't on the hook.
Would probably want to make sure there aren't any legal loopholes lurking that could fuck anybody involved, but honestly this seems like a pretty damn solid model.
And the school's "performance" directly impacts them - they can't charge a tuition that isn't tied to the marketability of their degree, and subsidized by unlimited student loans, because an underemployed alumni population would produce low ROI for investors.
Which would be a solid knock-on effect.
Though I don't think this would be useful for reversing the trend in increasing tuition, nor would it undo what's already been done. Investors are greedy bastards by definition: while they may not act like they have unlimited cash reserves as the government does, there would still be incentive to continue jacking up tuition... shit, this model might even amplify that trend.
Oh Christ, and then you get the government involved in regulation, with some kind of "you can't deny this service to students pursuing useless degrees and/or with terrible academic backgrounds," and you get the subprime mortgage crisis all over again.
Would there be a sensible way to head that off at the pass?
(post is archived)