I've had a few conversations lately about law schools that accept students with relatively low test scores and grades, and at which a noticeable percentage of students may drop out or be dismissed after the first year. Sometimes the practice is justified as providing students a shot at becoming a lawyer that they otherwise would not have in our grade and test-obsessed world. The phrase "access school" or "opportunity school" gets used.
If access and opportunity are the key concepts, shouldn't tuition at such a school be contingent on the student's success? In legal practice, "access" would typically be associated with a contingent fee. Charging full freight would not be considered an "access" move. Charging full freight would be considered a signal that the prospects of success did not justify a contingent arrangement.
Tuition could be made contingent either through refunds or through tiers, in which first year tuition was very modest, and second and third year tuition increased to offset the difference.
Food for thought.
Update: My friend Bernie Burk pointed out that Akhil Amar and Ian Ayres floated a proposal similar in spirit several years ago.