<p>Has anyone really thought about Oregon’s student assistance law? It appears to be a law that punishes the most able students.</p>
<p>The law says that a person has to pay back 3% of their income for 24 years and that their education would be paid off.</p>
<p>However, Americans are already leveraged 60 to 70 percent of their salaries with healthcare, food, mortgage, and childcare expenses. Even 3% is too much and would significantly delay the start of families.</p>
<p>Perhaps worse, a student who studies genetics or becomes a medical doctor and earns a higher salary would pay a lot more than someone who does a basket weaving course and earns less. Where is the fairness here? This type of law encourages students to study easier courses and to obtain low-end jobs. The law punishes success.</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with the details this proposal, but very little in OP’'s post makes sense to me. First, if you know 3% of your earnings are earmarked to repay the cost of your education (and participation is obviously a choice one makes, not a requirement), you plan and live accordingly–and don’t take on a problematic mortgage, for example. Second, it’s absurd to say anyone would elect a low paying career/job simply because 3% of earnings are committed to repaying the state. In fact, just the opposite is the case–people with low-end jobs need every penny and would feel the pain of losing 3% of their income far more than a physician, to use OP’s example. So the impetus would be to aim as high as possible. For those who choosing participate in the program, it would offer amazing opportunities for some who could never have imagined being able to afford a college education. All in all, while a lot of study should be made of the potential consequences (inflated college costs come to mind), I think this proposal is quite intriguing.</p>