[Repulsion9513]

That's unlikely to be accepted for other reasons. Putting a limit means most will approach that limit, and those that exceed the limit will be even more unaffordable. Plus no one will agree on what the limit should be. Which makes them extremely unpopular (except for benefits to individuals which of course should have the lowest limit possible nationwide)

[bumby]

>Plus no one will agree on what the limit should be.

We do this with drug reimbursement costs and construction already and I’m pretty sure those for-profit companies would also disagree on what the limit should be. I also don’t think it needs to be a one-size-fits all threshold; it could be adjusted to COL and/or job prospects that are tied to graduate statistics. IMO that goes a long way to aligning the incentives of the student and the institution.

I’m curious if you have an alternative solution

[Repulsion9513]

Yeah, I intentionally didn't say it wouldn't happen, just unlikely :)

Personally I think limits (and significantly higher grants to make student loans unnecessary for a basic post-secondary education) are needed. But I think it's worth recognizing that limits will make what's already a very divisive issue, even more divisive...

[bumby]

I think more thoughtful limits would be a good idea. I also think the reduction of aid money has been part of the problem. I just don't know where the money comes from to shore up that problem.

I have seen other pilot programs. I think it was Purdue who was considering "buying stock" in students, where the student would pay a portion of their income for a certain number of years in exchange for a scholarship.