In which we outsource the entire education funding debate to The Englishman

The Question Punk Is Do You Think Your Course Is Worth £9000?

?

If you answer no then there isn\’t a problem. Do something else.
If you answer yes there isn\’t one either. Grow up, invest in your future.

8 thoughts on “In which we outsource the entire education funding debate to The Englishman”

  1. Actually, that’s £27000. Plus living costs while studying.

    And if you do get a higher income as a result, the state takes up to 63% of it.

    If the ROI is compelling for the student, it’s just as compelling for the state.

    How about we do make it an argument about ROI on investing in capital and allow students to deduct interest paid on loans and pay CT on the uplift?

  2. I suppose the only question is about people who may be reluctant to take on such a high level of risk for their futures, and whether this then knocks on to society as a whole in terms of the benefits from educating the academic elite.

    And by “academic elite”, I mean the top 10%, not 40%. In a subject like computer programming, you need a small number of people with degrees because you need people with the deeper theoretical skills to write compilers or 3d rendering engines, but for most work, you need bright people with more of an apprentice level of training.

    This was where polys were supposed to fit in. That you didn’t do a degree but qualifications like HND or HNC which took a year or two and you could do without the costs of leaving home, part-time or full-time. You also had courses that were more tuned to pragmatic programming rather than the more theoretical level of a comp sci degree.

    I’m quite glad about this decision because it should actually lower job requirements for the next generation.

  3. A recent study in the USA found that 60% of those with college degrees were holding jobs that required a high school education at most.

  4. Tim Almond: exactly so, though like dearieme I’d suggest a much smaller percentage for the academic elite – probably 3%-6%.

  5. ‘If the ROI is compelling for the student, it’s just as compelling for the state.’

    But the (vast majority of) benefits do not accrue to the state.

    I do however agree with your proposition that investent in training should be treated in the same way as investment in capital.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    Kay Tie – “If the ROI is compelling for the student, it’s just as compelling for the state.”

    Except is there a rate of return? At least for some subjects there clearly is not to the rest of us. I saw a study in Australia that claimed doing a Liberal Arts degree depresses your life time earnings. Which, given Australian Universities, is perhaps not surprising.

    The government does not have the balls to say we should not be funding useless subjects. They do not have the balls to raise taxes either. This is just a way of getting around both issues. They will transfer the responsibility to think about the long-term economic effects to students and they will stop funding education.

    The truth is that there is only one reliable rule for government spending – we will pay more tax, get fewer services and be forced to also pay fees for what were free services, over time.

  7. “A recent study in the USA found that 60% of those with college degrees were holding jobs that required a high school education at most.”

    I call bullshit. I mean, you *can* become an accountant or a CEO with a high school education only, but that doesn’t mean that going to uni doesn’t help your chances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *