Imagine what our public universities could look like with solid funding increases (which would be a fraction of that 17% that this group wants to take). They could be both free and amazing.
There is a key difference. With public education, the excess cost of the education is born equally by ALL taxpayers. With education that is funded by a percentage of future income rather than a fixed up-front cost, that is born only by the graduates. It means that those not fortunate enough to attend college (or not interested) are not expected to subsidize the students, and it also means that students can choose from a range of different qualities (and costs) of school.
Also the original article spoke at length about aligning the incentives of the school and the student. If you believe (I do not) that the only or most important role of a school is to prepare the student for a more lucrative job, then this alignment of incentives is a significant value of its own.
The reason we're having this conversation in the first place is precisely the "funding increases" they've been experiencing. If this isn't enough "funding increase" for them: https://rpreschern.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/college-tuiti... then I'd have to suggest "funding" is not their problem. What they'd look like with "solid funding increases" is pretty much what you're seeing right now.
Prices tend to do this is a supply constricted market when demand is artificially boosted by government subsidies.
If universities had that tuition plan they would be bankrupt.
Universities could offer this today in some programs (CS, medicine, law, etc). But what about arts programs? Music? Are these employable enough to incentivize a University to to take a chance on students ability to repay?
If Lambda School begins to suck and isn't educating engineers to competency, they go out of business quickly. Voluntary vs involuntary funding is an incredibly important difference.
That said, there’s still substantial differences between Lambda and a free year in college. For starters, if you have a poor GPA with a California Promise grant, it seems you have pay back the fees. Not sure what Lambda’s equivalent of a GPA is, but they don’t skim your salary if it’s below $50K. I think the more salient point is that the Lambda school has much more direct incentive to land you a good job, and ostensibly that incentive creates a stronger learning environment. Such direct incentive does not exist at a traditional state college, whether you’re paying tuition or getting a free year.
This is all a long way of saying that, while I don’t think Lambda is going to significantly impact the student debt crisis (st least in the near future), to say that they’re just putting a SV spin on the old idea of public education is overly facile.