The Upside

There are some potential advantages to this approach. First, the obvious: fewer loans. Under Pay It Forward, Oregon students would not borrow any money to cover tuition. That means less debt impacting their credit score. And, just like under income-based repayment plans for federal student loans, there's zero chance of default.

The plan also has an appealing progressive streak. Future one percenters will pay the most for their educations. Graduates that find themselves mixing espresso drinks after commencement, or who devote themselves to low-earning careers like teaching, will pay the least.

Meanwhile, the system might encourage poor students to reach for better, more selective colleges. Some higher-ed experts, such as the University of Wisconsin's Sara Goldrick-Rab, argue that low-income students are discouraged from applying to top schools by so-called "sticker-shock." They see the astronomical advertised price of tuition at State U. and assume they can't afford it, even if the admissions office promises that they'll provide ample financial aid. Part of the problem may be that poor and working class families have little trust in large, unfamiliar institutions. But under Pay It Forward, up-front tuition is no longer an issue, and there's no need to guess about grants and other aid.

Finally, the program could potentially force some spending discipline on Oregon's colleges. Without the ability to raise tuition, schools will be forced to clamp down on their most profligate habits.

The Downside

So what could go wrong? Lots, sadly. Because Pay It Forward wouldn't eliminate student debt completely, it might inadvertently make college less financially manageable for some students. At the same time, it could drive the most talented young people out of the state college system altogether. And, to top it all off, the whole plan might be financially unsustainable for the state.

Let's take those one at a time.

One of the fiercest critics of Pay It Forward so far has actually been Wisconsin's Goldrick-Rab. In a lengthy, must-read vivisection* of the policy posted today at The Century Foundation, she homes in on what I think is one of the idea's biggest weaknesses: it would still leave plenty of students buried in loans.

It's a major misconception that student debt is driven entirely by tuition. In many cases, it's not. At public schools, and especially community colleges, room, board, and supplies like textbooks are often far more expensive, especially once you take institutional aid into account. Pay it forward delays the cost of classes until after graduation, but not the cost of housing, meals, or course materials. So, as Goldrick-Rab points out, the typical student at The University of Oregon would still be staring down about $14,000 a year in expenses. Working 20-hours a week at a minimum-wage job, she notes, would earn them $7,000 after taxes. The other $7,000? Either they'd pay it upfront with family help, or they'd borrow it. (That's one of the reasons she's doubtful the plan would help with sticker shock).