CLASS DISMISSED: Retroactive tuition payment offers fix

In California, a group of students have found a way to make student loans obsolete.

According to a Huffington Post article written by Tyler Kingkade, students at the University of California Riverside have devised a method in which paying tuition will take care of itself.

Specifically, these students proposed that five percent of every paycheck from the university’s graduates will go toward paying off their tuition for 20 years, with adjustments made if the student is from out of the state or if the graduate works for the public sector.

They reason that such a system would eliminate the need to pay up-front for an education and for student loans.

The idea of paying for a college education retroactively may seem radical to some, but to me, it is exactly the solution we may be looking for.

Instead of paying out-of-pocket, students could pay their tuition costs in the same way that they pay their contribution to Social Security: without a second thought.

If nothing else, this solution could “make sure that the middle class continues to have access to higher education,” as said by UC President Mark Yudof, who was presented with this idea on Feb. 9.

Such a system could indeed be great for FIU, especially with our tuition on the rise.

As of now, the estimated annual tuition for an in-state student is $5,678.02 and $18,077.02, for an out-of-state student, according to the FIU’s admissions website, which would make an average four-year college career at FIU cost anywhere from $22,712.08 to $72,308.08.

In the article, several naysayers argued that an income-adjusted repayment system is unfair to students with a degree that could help them acquire a higher-paying job, who may pay “too much” should this become a real policy.

Furthermore, there is the argument that post-graduate employment isn’t guaranteed.

Although the latter concern is valid, I have to disagree with the notion that such a system is inherently unfair. For those students who acquire higher-paying jobs, I would argue that they, of all graduates, could afford this percentage much more easily than their lower-earning counterparts.
For example, a college graduate with a salary of $50,000 would feel a $5,000 annual payment much more than their fellow graduate who earns a salary of $100,000. However, a college grad earning $50,000 only paying $2,500 per year would be much more manageable.

The only thing I would change is the time period in which this five percent cut is taken.

Instead of having a set repayment period of 20 years for every student, it should cease as soon as their  tuition is paid off.

In this case, graduates with higher paying jobs may be at an advantage in that their tuition would be paid off faster since they would indeed be paying more, given that their tuition is relatively low.

Tuition costs will not be on the decline any time soon, and we must come up with innovative solutions that will help ease the strain. Otherwise, more and more qualified students will either major in debt or not go to college at all.

“Class Dismissed” is a weekly column critiquing education in America.

Email jasmyn.elliott@fiusm.com