Suppose that the third year of Harvard Law School costs $40,000. Under plan (1), you borrow $40,000 from a bank and give the money to Harvard in return for your education; you owe $40,000 but Harvard pays it, so that you pay $0 back per month as long as you are employed in a sufficiently low-paying public service job. If you stay in that job long enough, you pay back $0 and the debt is retired. Under plan (2), you don't borrow anything and don't pay Harvard anything, nor do you have a debt. But you have a contractual obligation to pay Harvard $40,000 (actually more) if you never take the public service job, and the amount you are required to pay if you breach your pledge gradually declines to $0 as you stay longer in the job. In short, under plan (1) and plan (2) you pay nothing for your third year at Harvard if you take a public service job for a sufficiently long period time, and you pay something up to $40,000 if you do not. Incidentally, because the two plans are identical (except for their names and for trivial details, and for the fact that the loan-forgiveness plan may cover more than one year of tuition), the new plan will not have any special incentive effects, for women or anyone else, that the old plan lacked.