It was not meant to be an insult, i simply think framing higher education against economic gain at all misses a lot of the value people derive from attending.
> Schools should only be paid if their education yielded economic gain for students but students should be permitted escape valves if possible.
This sentence reads (to me) as if "schools should only get paid if it leads to students making money" and the "escape valve" part seems like "students have an escape from paying when its not profitable" not "they can pay when its not profitable".
Under your new wording, I think that i still disagree. I think schools should charge however they want and instead of regulating how private institutions receive income, we should ensure that there are affordable options focused on vocational outcomes (state-run schools) that are so affordable that they are always economically gainful.
Some taxes are already based on income, so maybe in a profit-sharing model, attending state school is free but you share X% of income in taxes per credit-hour or per-semester until a certain cost is repaid to the state. (eg. a 100 credit hour degree costs 10% income at 0.1% per credit hour until $50k is repaid while a drop-out who attended for a single 15 credit hour semester pays 1.5%, while Harvard can charge 50k per semester up front to any one willing, regardless of outcome)
