The students interest is getting an education, converting that education into employment, and not being indebted. The schools interest is revenue.
The student would be best off with a free tax funded education and no debt, the school is best off with guaranteed federal loans allowing them to charge imaginary tuition rates no one can normally afford but for guaranteed student loans.
Where is the alignment of interests come from with private capital in exchange for future earnings? Students are left indebted (maybe not in debt but indebted) and schools face the reality the private market isn’t willing to pay runaway tuition costs like guaranteed federal loans because private market knows it’s a bad investment (as evidenced by the current amount of outstanding student loans and default rates, nearly 1million defaults a year). Next thing we know the private investors will begin negotiating tuitions on behalf their investments and leaving non- capital backed students footing the bill for the difference (kind of like our messed up healthcare system).
If the student does get a good job, the school gets paid more.
Thus the school is highly incentivized to make sure that their graduating students are highly employable.
This is very different from the other systems where the school gets paid no matter what happens after graduation.
The school isn’t the one making these deals (at least from the example in the article), private investors are entering into these agreements with students.
If the student doesn’t get a job the private investors don’t get paid, whereas the school has already been paid.
In theory a government agency could do the same, but I think there is enough evidence that investors do a better job of investing their own money than government employees do for investing tax payer money.
It's bad enough that students are likely to be naturally drawn towards certain career choices - such as advertising technology - because of the generous pay to be found in that sector, rather than because they see an opportunity to make the world a better place. Let's not give educational institutions an added financial incentive to promote the most lucrative courses and careers rather than the most beneficial ones.
First, that is quite a different question than the one I was answering. When someone is asked what is the best way to eat an elephant and tries to give an answer, mentioning that people shouldn't eat elephants is a comment better directed at the person asking the original question and not the one answering.
Second, no, but we also have scholarships and such which reduce cost for those deemed having potential that isn't restricted just to making money. It would be unwise to overlook the increase in earning potential being the reason so many college students justify taking on their degree, and it would also be unwise to insist that the college experience is the path for those who want a general purpose education without a specific purpose.
Third, that figuring out how to trick more people into buying something is a more lucrative career than something that advances human society is an indictment of humanity at large. Is colleges promoting beneficial courses (based on what ever definition you go with) over lucrative ones really benefiting society when it leaves the student without the ability to earn money in a society that runs on money?
Yes, you should have to be able to make a living at something to convince someone to loan you the money, even on ISA terms.
Do you think the school cares if you pay them using a federal student loan vs a group of private investors making payments on your behalf?
How does one align the incentives of the school with students any more than the other?
The only alignment of interests the school has with the students is when the student has a rich parent who could be a donor or the student is a super athlete that can measurably impact the school revenue as an unpaid student athlete.