?

Obviously Student debt is too high. Not merely the excessive cost rise but the continuing debt burden.

So what about linking education to future income. A college or university gives away classes and courses based on availability. A student is required to pay some percentage (15%) of his future income back to the school, college or university for a period of years based on how long it took them to complete the program. EX: 3 years of classes = 3 X 3 or 9 years of 15% of their total income. Go back and get a masters = 2 X 3 or 6 total years of paying 15% of total salary to the school.

This would incentivize the schools to provide classes for legitimate skills and for talented prospects. The schools would be burdened by those loafs that major in underwater basket weaving and have to earn their livelihood dishing out Burgers by the Billions. Longer programs like Med school get longer return on school costs.

In reality, students appear to be the worst at choosing a program that is both cost effective and legitimate for their own future ability to earn. The schools can better optimize matching a student with skills and training to give them a better return on their investment of time, classes and resources. It would also give them incentive to increase classes in high demand professions and decrease classes where the return is lower. No one would major in equestrian studies and more would be pushed toward engineering. What the market demands is what the universities would produce.

If you have a mutual fund that has accounts that are "marginable" does that mean they are at risk for "re-hypothication" of those assets in the fund?