Learning platforms often struggle with low course completion rates, typically between 10-15%, which hurts both learners (who invest time and money) and educators (who see lower engagement). Existing models charge upfront fees without linking them to completion, missing an opportunity to align financial incentives with learner commitment.

Reframing Course Economics

One approach to address this could involve tying course fees to completion rates. For instance, learners might pay a fixed amount upfront (e.g., $200) and receive a partial refund based on how much of the course they finish. For example:

• Watching 50% of lectures and completing half the assignments? Get $100 back.
• Finishing everything? A full $200 refund.

Progress could be tracked automatically through video viewing metrics, quiz results, and project submissions, with the platform managing payments and refunds.

Aligning Stakeholder Incentives

This model could benefit:

• Learners: Financial stakes may motivate completion, improving skill retention.
• Educators: Higher completion rates could justify premium pricing and attract serious students.
• Platforms: Revenue could come from retaining a percentage of non-refunded fees or charging educators hosting costs.

Implementation Pathways

A minimal version might focus on a single course category (e.g., professional certifications) with a simple two-tier refund structure. Early testing could involve partnerships with instructors on existing platforms to gauge demand. Key considerations include preventing abuse (e.g., requiring meaningful engagement for refunds) and adjusting refund percentages to ensure sustainability.

The idea combines behavioral economics—using financial commitment to boost follow-through—with scalable e-learning infrastructure. Unlike platforms that monetize regardless of outcomes, this approach rewards completion, potentially creating a more accountable learning environment.