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 difference
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 disturb
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
