Novocastrian

Firstly, that's true everywhere. The OH is currently suffering from having to take orders from a thicko jock prat of a principal who's 20 odd years younger than her, and certainly shouldn't have been admitted to a university way back then.

Second, and more to the point, the vast bloating of student numbers has lead to the hiring of a commensurately large number of "lecturers" who really aren't up to scratch.

Such is the brokenness of where we are today.

Novocastrian

OK, cloth ears. Poor has nothing to do with it. It's the stupid ones I'm talking about. If you're stupid but have a a degree (paid for by daddy or the bank), you're still stupid. A few years wasting time in university won't change that. And it certainly won't make you well off if it costs you $20K+in debt.

It might get you a job making coffee, and you might grow up and smell it sooner or later, but you're still 4 years older than before and in a deep hole.

Atlantic Xpat

The plumbers will likely make more money than the degree qualified tea boys. And won't be class traitors to boot. A win win then.

Novocastrian

I re-read this. Of course I don't think making well off people pay is wrong.

That's what progressive income taxes are for.

Alan2005

Er, but that still makes people who don't go to uni pay for those that do - how is that fair?

Jingsamichty

For the sake of this argument, what % of 16-18 year old school leavers do you think should reasonably be attending a University*?

*as opposed to a trade school, technical college, polytechnic etc.


I say somewhere between 5-10%, probably closer to 5%.

Oink

Who should make that determination; the state, institution or the individual? This all smacks of the immigrant who wants to restrict immigration in fear that their hard won privilege is eroded.

Cape Blue

Why then make those without children pay for schools? Or those without a car pay for roads? I think its all about the common good isn't it? (or is that a socialist concept?)

Or we could of course charge for primary and secondary schooling - the students are getting the benefit so they could take out loans that they can pay back later when they are earning more for having attended schools, those that do not have the horizon to want to take the loans (or don't have parents who can afford to pay for the schooling) can go straight into the workplace. That way, those that didn't attend primary/secondary will not be paying for those that do in their taxes.

It does seem to me that those in the 40+ age bracket in the UK are pulling up the drawbridge - we got free education at Uni paid for by the taxes of others, but rather than cough-up our share to pay for today's students, we want them to contribute instead.

dbd33

I don't especially think that, I'm indifferent to the funding of the well off. My concern is with access for the less well off and I am unable to grasp your idea that they gain by being charged a fee. Where I come from something that costs money is less available that something that doesn't.

I also lack your faith in the ability of bureaucracies to achieve anything, a means tested system to me suggests lots of people to administer the system and a benefit to those who have, or can hire, expertise to deal with it at the expense of the naive and ill informed. I suggest that taxation systems based on allowances are an example of this; for example, posters here I know to receive the GST rebate intended for the poor include myself and RICH, neither of whom are truly poor but both of whom have accountants. A system of scholarships and merit money such as we see in the US is another example, a student may be eligible for funding at one school not another, one program not another, a rich student can hire someone to work out where the best poverty money is available, a poor one cannot.

I think an educational system should be aimed at benefitting society by offering the best opportunities to the most able and that the way to achieve this is to make education "free", the rationing being sorted out by tests of academic prowess, accepting that such tests will never be exactly fair nor accurate. "free" meaning funded from general taxation, progressive taxation collecting disproportionately from the well off, accepting that taxation aint quite fair either.

Tell me again why it's better if you have to pay for it.

Almost Canadian

Why do people always come up with this argument? Why not look at it on the basis that you are paying for your own, past, education when you pay your taxes now? I know that`s not how it actually works, just like those that are currently paying taxes, NI etc, did not pay for the cost of their birth prior to, or at the time of, being delivered.

Oink

This is the problem, is seems counter intuitive and it takes a bit of lateral thinking. But in a pluralistic capitalist democracy it’s the only effective way to solve the problem. We could come up with lots of creative solutions if we used dictatorial decrees, but we can't.
When we look at the US and Canada with their form of a pay-as-you-go system, they had far more of their population in HE than the UK ever did. We rationed places, they didn't. Of course their systems are not fundamentally equal, not everyone can afford Harvard or Yale, but there is access to HE even if it's through the community college route.

Oink

Because we have a compulsory attendance policy.

dbd33

If I follow this correctly the argument is that fees work because, in a profit based system, more suppliers come into the market in order to gain the fees and that incidentally increases access. One problem I see with this is that the product is diluted, not all the suppliers are of the same quality, more degrees are sold but they're not the same degrees as were earned.

The second is that I am unable to reconcile this, arguable, general benefit with the specific disadvantage to someone who could attend university when it was free but can't now because it costs. It seems to me that the effect of a fee based system is that more reasonably affluent people get degrees but they're of less value, while those at the margin are excluded. If there are winners in a switch to a fee based system I suppose it's second quality teachers, more institutions means more jobs for them.

And then there's the stupidity of making people start their working lives from behind the financial start line.

Novocastrian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...versities-cuts

"40% of current GCSE and A level students say they will reconsider university if the fees are increased".

Still think pay-as-you-go increases access?

jimf

Attending state school isn't compulsory - people can home school as an alternative.