education

[billy]

including higher education such as university;
should it be paid for out of our taxes? or should it be paid for out of what we earn? (cash in pocket, so to speak)

[abu nuwas]

Science and technology, and some similar stuff, should be free. The rest, much as I may love it, should be paid for. If the Government needs, say, people trained in Tibetan, then that also.

Having said which, I am not sure why secondary education is free, and tertiary is not.

[billy]

i agree on the tertiary ed. my daughter in the uk also has to pay for pre school or did when the grandkids were younger, and it was pretty expensive specially for two of em. i've not heard the argument for selective free classes at college or university but what a great idea. for instance (as you say) the medical degrees could be free as could the IT stuff. art craft and politico stuff could be paid for. not sure it would work, though it would be good to see less lawyers .
i think it should be paid for by the gov unless its an exotic course.

[Touchstone]

The government has a finite amount of our money to spend on education. I'd rather they focused it on pre-school and primary education--spend whatever it takes to ensure almost everyone is able to read, write and add up. Whatever is left over should be spend on secondary education up to the school leaving age.

I'd love it if all education was free but the reality is we just cannot afford that. The most effective use of our limited money is on quality foundations.

[billy]

how about making it so the company pays for the higher education then. a college apprenticeship so to speak where they work and earn their degree over a set period of time. which obligates them to work for the company for two years or pay the costs of the tuition which they know beforehand should they leave early.

[Universalchild]

I think education should be a top priority for the government and should be free. The next generation are our future, so really, I think it is unfair to expect them to support "us" one day while refusing to pay out for it. I would happily pay extra taxes to support the education of others.

However, I do think that young people should be *less* encouraged to go onto university. I think far too many young people go and then drop out, or get a degree they don't even use. I think schools put too much focus on university and ignore all the wonderful apprenticeship oppertunities out there. I think vocational courses should be giving more attention, like NVQ's - people should only go to university if they genuinely want to study at a high academic level, not just because they don't know what else to do! No point getting into debt for no reason.

[abu nuwas]

Ah! Lawyers...They are a particular case. It must not be, that only the children of the well-off can get into the profession. But there is something wrong with the whole set-up --- especially, when you bear in mind the obvious desirability of bringing down legal costs. Why are they so high? Many years ago, I read an article in the 'Solicitors' Journal' -a kind of trade paper - in which the writer bragged about the success they had had in restricting entrance to the profession. Because of this, the public, and the courts, had to accept higher and higher hourly rates. Now a great many people obtain an Llb degree from University, but this qualifies them for nothing. Only those -a minority -- who go on to get professional training, eventually qualify as Solicitors or Barristers. What if the state demanded that anyone offering a degree must make it so that when the student left, they were ready to practice? Perhaps longer courses, perhaps fewer students--but I'd eat my arse if it did not result in more qualified lawyers, and less extravagant costs. It would still be a highly attractive profession, but at a time when the government is cutting back on legal aid, it would be of great help to those at the bottom--in fact everyone. The very top men would command exactly the same rates as they now do.

Was that me ranting? My stars!

[srijantje]

go to uni on a government loan,once you start making a certain amount of money,pay it back,that's the system we used to have in holland,pretty good i thought

[Leanne]

go to uni on a government loan,once you start making a certain amount of money,pay it back,that's the system we used to have in holland,pretty good i thought

That's how it works here too sj. Citizens have subsidised education but still have to pay for it, it just goes as a loan through the tax system so as soon as you're earning over a certain amount (I think it's about $35000), it's automatically deducted from your wages, indexed according to how much you earn. Post-grad degrees are mostly paid for up front but you can also defer payment for certain degrees in high-demand industries, which is what I'm doing (grad dip ed), otherwise there's no chance I'd be able to afford it and the only educated people would be the wealthy, which would suck because money is no guarantee of brains.

[srijantje]

yes,not a bad system at all

[addy]

Yep, sounds fair.

I also agree with touchstone and universalchild's point, that importance should be put on basic education and a degree, while nice, shouldn't always be the standard. here in the philippines we have too much of a college glut, I think, because we value education highly. Everyone is expected to go to college, but then the reality is that most graduates only get third-rate clerical work-- if they're lucky. There are college graduates who end up working as wait staff because the universities they went to weren't "good enough". What a waste.

[billy]

the thing with the loan system is that it will eventually get abused. in the uk the colleges put their prices up 3 thold in one go.

---

Ah! Lawyers...They are a particular case. It must not be, that only the children of the well-off can get into the profession. But there is something wrong with the whole set-up --- especially, when you bear in mind the obvious desirability of bringing down legal costs. Why are they so high? Many years ago, I read an article in the 'Solicitors' Journal' -a kind of trade paper - in which the writer bragged about the success they had had in restricting entrance to the profession. Because of this, the public, and the courts, had to accept higher and higher hourly rates. Now a great many people obtain an Llb degree from University, but this qualifies them for nothing. Only those -a minority -- who go on to get professional training, eventually qualify as Solicitors or Barristers. What if the state demanded that anyone offering a degree must make it so that when the student left, they were ready to practice? Perhaps longer courses, perhaps fewer students--but I'd eat my arse if it did not result in more qualified lawyers, and less extravagant costs. It would still be a highly attractive profession, but at a time when the government is cutting back on legal aid, it would be of great help to those at the bottom--in fact everyone. The very top men would command exactly the same rates as they now do.

Was that me ranting? My stars!

hehe, i think they could solve the problem by making mandatory charges for services rendered. at present these bastards can charge anything up to 100 pound sterling for sending a letter out. 50 for a telephone call and thousands an hour for representation. if the court sets the charge and allows a percentage maximum to go to the lawyers it would be an even playing field.

[addy]

Oh yeah, the universities around here make a killing too. Some of the major ones have things like big LCD screens at the front to even sell ad space in (guess where they got the money to do that).... they really act like businesses whose primary goal is to make money.

[abu nuwas]

I think the problem with law, is that there a fairly small number of truly brilliant people, whose services are really valuable, and they naturally attract high fees. It goes wrong, I believe, when far lesser men and women, cling on to their coat-tails, and do the same, or something like it.

Many years ago, I bought a flat in France. The Bank gave me a form for the solicitor to complete, which said that my wife had no interest in my house. I told the solicitor, the senior partner of some local firm, that I thought the Bank was wrong, since long before that, there had been an Appeal Court decision, to the effect that a man could not sell the matrimonial home without the consent of his wife, whether or not it was in his sole name.

The man looked at me, as teachers sometimes do: as if I was an idiot. I went through it again, likewise my wife said it was just factually inaccurate. No, he said, in the poshest voice he could muster (how much extra for that?), if I wanted the loan, I must sig

n. So I did -- I was in a hurry. Later, I spoke to the Bank who with no hesitation saw that they had given me the wrong form. So back to the Solicitor. No apology for being an ignorant prick. But for fiddling around with the Bank's pro-forma, he had no hesitation in sending a decent bill! He could have been the original for the author of the Bill of Costs

In the matter of Mr J Ponsonby de Tomkyns

To Seeing you on the other side of the Strand
and crossing to discuss a matter with you 1 guinea

To Realising that I had misidentified you and
crossing back 1 guinea

Total 2 guineas

[Touchstone]

If the state grew money on an infinitely expanding number of trees, all education should be totally free of charge to the recipient. But even people who believe in the value of education, who would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund it for all, would probably have to admit that health care should also, ideally, be free. And public safety, as provided for by the police, courts, and prison service. The reality is you just cannot get enough people to pay enough taxes to provide education free of charge to everyone.

So, the government has a finite amount of our money to spend, which will not cover all the education everyone could ever want.

Primary and secondary education is should be a basic right, that a state provides to all young people within it. All young people will go on to work and pay taxes (or not work and receive benefits, but the chances of that are lessened by them having an education), so it is in the state's best interests to provide free education to its young.

Tertiary education should be treated as an investment. It is not worthwhile in all cases. The benefits to the individual and to society of it should be weighed against the costs of providing it; which ought to be born by the beneficiaries in proportion. A teacher, for example, will provide a significant benefit to a society but teacher's salaries are relatively low. Teaching degrees ought to be fairly highly subsidized. A doctor will also provide significant benefit but they will earn significantly more over the course of the working life. Medical degrees ought to be subsidized but not as much. Arts degrees enrich a persons life but are of bugger all benefit to anyone else. They shouldn't be subsidized at all.

Subsidies in the form of government loans are the most appropriate in my opinion. Not much point charging up front so that people have to work a lifetime to save up enough to be able to afford to lean medicine. Let them take the course first and then pay it back over their lifetime.

I don't believe loans should be interest free. That encourages people to delay repaying them, which effectively deprives the following generations of the money. But the aim shouldn't be for the government to make money, so the interest rate should only equal the inflation rate. And repayments should be fixed at a percentage of income, skewed so that the higher the income the higher the percentage of repayment, to reflect the fact that starting salaries are mostly lower and a higher percentage of them is required to cover basic living expenses. Loans shouldn't extend beyond death though, if you die before they're repaid, they should be written off.

As for Bill'sy/Addy's point, that educational providers will abuse a loan system by hiking their rates. I agree there is a risk (certainty) of that happening. But that risk is also there if the state simply pays for everything without requiring students to repay; or if the state doesn't provide any funding and requires students to obtain private loans. And if the state were to take on the role of providing the education (ie. no private education providers) then state's are notoriously inefficient at service provision. In short, if you want to use such terminology, a student loan system is the least dangerous solution to the challenge of funding higher education.

[Leanne]

The risk of providers hiking up their rates is reduced by making all universities public, or rather, allowing private universities but not subsidising those fees at all.

There are only 2 private universities in Australia and both are rather... well, let's just say that intellectual ability is not necessarily the main prerequisite for entry. Entry into public universities is based on high school academic results only -- none of this "you must have a zillion extracurricular activities to get in here" nonsense -- for school leavers, and an equivalency scale for mature-age students. Additionally, vocational training is public and apprenticeships/ traineeships are subsidised by the government. Universities generally make their money from full-fee-paying overseas students -- in recent years there has been quite an overhaul of that system as well, to ensure that the never-proven-always-suspected practice of devaluing results by going easy on the marking for lucrative international students is wiped out. One day, that might even happen.

[Touchstone]

Why should taxpayers subsidize the apprenticeships of electricians but not the university studies of teachers?

[billy]

at one time. apprenticeships/vocational training was given/paid for by the company. plumbing welding joinery and the like.
i have no problem someone doing a two year course on two thirds pay in order to pay for them. or for the company to pay or give on the job training. a contract fro two years employment could be signed or something similar. lots of courses could be dropped altogether. for me the arts, are the ones we should pay through taxes as should the science, math and english degrees. at present we have too many degree courses with no outcome at the end as far as jobs are concerned. when you get people with degrees in microbiology having to work in macdonalds you should be aware that we're wasting our taxes paying for them. on the other hand, universities and think tanks, firms who need such workers should look ahead and pay for scholarships indentured for a year or two etc but privately paid for non the less. there has to be a system where the state runs the tertiary schools efficiently and exotic subjects are paid for by industry.

---

Why should taxpayers subsidize the apprenticeships of electricians but not the university studies of teachers?

because very often it's the teachers with the degree who is teaching the apprentice.

[Leanne]

Why should taxpayers subsidize the apprenticeships of electricians but not the university studies of teachers?

In Australia, both are subsidised. Teaching degrees are "Commonwealth supported", same as nursing, that is they're provided at a much lower cost than other degrees provided one meets the academic requirements.

[billy]

which gives us another option for other states/countries. a tiered fee depending on the scholarship. those that do more good and are of more use to us as a society; as opposed to those of more use to business, are set at a lower rate.