Full text: A study of student loans and their relation to higher educational finance

48 
A Study of Student Loans and 
he will later Charge a price for his Services, based upon his training. The 
advocates of this view would ask a fee that is just sufficient to make the 
Student appreciate the training he is receiving. Such a charge would bear 
no relation to the economic value of the training. 
Recipient Should Pay Full Cost 
Those who hold the opposite view maintain that the recipient of the 
education should bear the full cost. This is an individualistic opinion 
as compared with the socialistic one just discussed. There is some differ- 
ence within this group as to what is to be included in the cost.of education. 
However, regardless of that, they believe that the Student should be 
charged the full cost of giving him his training. This is based on a 
philosophy that the Student is the one who gains primarily and that 
society’s benefit is so remote that it should pay either little or none of 
the cost. Many who speak of the full cost have their own interpretation 
of what this consists. Some interpret it to be current expenses; others, 
both current and fixed expenses, and some would go so far as to include 
the interest on invested Capital, leaving out only the element of profit. 
This means an attempt, or at least a belief that the whole of higher 
education should be put on a purely business basis. If such a practice 
were followed, it might result in serious consequences. It might dis- 
turb our present type of enrollment unless we found a way to assist 
the less well-to-do Student to help himself in the way of loans. It would 
also mean that the cost of instruction would rise, since if education 
were on a purely business basis, the teaching staff would demand higher 
salaries and there would be a danger of throwing the whole of education 
on a bargaining basis and thus make it purely a money proposition. The 
same would be true if cost were interpreted to mean current costs or 
current expenses. It would mean that the state or endowments would 
furnish the plant and the Student would be charged the cost of upkeep 
and Operation. The same objections enter here. It is an arbitrary way 
of allocating costs because it fails to take into account aims or purposes 
on one hand and the direction which benefits take on the other. It is an 
attempt to apportion costs between society and the individual, but one 
which is based on the mechanics of accounting rather than being based 
on social equity. 
Dividing Cost Between Recipient and Society 
Between the two extremes we find more sturdy thinking not only 
from the standpoint of College and university finance, but from the broad 
social consequences as well. This group believes that the cost should be
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.