☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debates阅读写作分析--the cost of higher education

素年锦时UID: 2610749

There has been substantial research exploring the impacts of higher education on human development from multiple perspectives, including sociological, psychological, political, economic and cultural studies. That higher education has favourable effects upon both individuals and society as a whole is widely acknowledged, though opinions differ on the degree and specific causes of these effects.

In both developed and less developed economies, there is a commonly accepted belief that investments in higher education can bring significant monetary benefits to individuals. First, higher education influences the earning capacity of individuals. Higher education can improve the knowledge, skills and productive capability of individuals, which in turn bring individuals higher income and higher social status. Moreover, people with more education are less likely to be unemployed, and thus obtain higher lifetime earnings (Bombach, 1964; Bowen, 1977). Second, higher education can influence individuals’ productivity in activities outside the labour markets, such as investment in capital markets (Cohn & Geske, 1992). Besides these monetary and direct returns to investments in higher education, various studies have shown that there are substantial indirect benefits of higher education to individuals (William Bowen, 1964; Bombach, 1964; Howard Bowen, 1977; Fagerlind and Saha, 1989; Coleman, 1988; Cohn & Geske, 1992). The list is quite long, including the enjoyment of learning and working, more appreciation of arts and music, the efficiency and frequency of investments in good health and nutrition, higher family stability and an enhanced ability to provide better education for the younger generation.

For society as a whole, returns to higher education also include both monetary and non-monetary benefits. First of all, higher education influences the productive capacity of the economy. The availability of substantial numbers of highly educated people has significant positive effects on technical and economic progress (Bowen, 1996). Second, tax payments are positively associated with educational investments (Cohn & Geske, 1992). By training people in science and technology and expanding their capacities for research, a nation can accelerate its economic development, which in turn increases its overall wealth and helps to reduce poverty (Bowen, 1977). Furthermore, higher education has significant non-monetary benefits to a society. It can promote an open and meritocratic civil society. As a lot of studies have illustrated (Bowen, 1977; Fagerlind and Saha, 1989; Cohn & Geske, 1992), well-educated citizens generally favour civil liberties, individual autonomy and freedom, oppose discrimination on grounds of race, gender, religion, nationality and social class, respect diversity, and have more interests in community and political affairs. Moreover, higher education discourages antisocial or illegal behaviour, and thus decreases criminal acts.

In conclusion, both the public and private returns to higher education are substantial. Therefore, it is in both individuals’ and a society’s interest to invest in higher education. However, extensive research has indicated that low-income families, when faced with major financial barriers to higher education, exhibit a stream of counterproductive educational choices, despite the high rate of return to higher education. Therefore, to narrow over time the unacceptable income-related gaps existing in higher education participation, the government should consider heavily subsidising higher education by directing financial aid towards those students whose families could not be reasonably expected to contribute to higher-education expenses as a result of their low incomes.（两者都重要
但是考虑到部分人的情况
政府应当进行援助）

素年锦时UID: 2610749

After two weeks of penetrating insights and passionate comments, we have a verdict. You have voted against the proposition by 53% to 47%.

This house does not believe that “individuals, not the state, should pay for higher education.”

The vote was close, but through the last week of debate the balance remained on the same side. The many comments along the lines of  “I’m suffering under the weight of crippling student fees right now” suggest one reason was simple outrage felt by those who have to pay through the nose for something that until recently was far cheaper, or even free.

But I suspect that the biggest reason for the “no” vote was that the very many readers who thought the cost of higher education should be shared between students and taxpayers tended to vote against the proposition. That made the task of Alison Wolf rather difficult. As she pointed out, nowhere in the world do fees from students in higher education cover the entire cost of their tuition; nor did she want to argue that they should. Simply stated, her central point was that those countries where students pay nothing at all are making an unjust and unwise decision about how to spend taxpayers’ money. No one will be surprised to be told that The Economist agrees entirely.

As the number of students in higher education soars, it remains to be seen how long those countries that charge nothing for higher education can continue to do so—and what are the implications for quality. Everywhere else, governments, citizens, employers, students and parents will continue to debate how the cost should be shared between them. The Economist will be reporting on their conclusions—and the consequences.

Though we have counted our votes and declared a winner, you can still comment on the debate and its outcome until Monday November 17th. I look forward to seeing what else you have to say.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

Comments from the floor


bohemian descendant wrote:
Dear Madam,

When higher education has a cost to the student, rather than a quota of places, will we see students that are wise enough, and flexible enough, to beat the market with a 3-7 year predictive power?

I doubt they would study Science, Engineering, or Society based degrees, when considering the above question, but at least we wont be short on economics and management graduates :)
posted on 03/11/2008 05:36:42 am Recommended (1) Report abuse
Ryan S. wrote:
Dear Madam,

I am currently a university student in America, which has some of the highest education costs in the world. I hope that I can apply to medical school in a year or two. Financially independent, I am working full-time to pay for school, but I am afraid I might not be able to finish because the cost of education is simply too high. To those who think education should not be free, why should entering medical school depend more on my ability to shell out thousands of dollars, than on my ability to do the coursework?
posted on 03/11/2008 04:26:45 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Galladriel wrote:
Dear Madam,

Exorbitant student loans prevent gifted people from pursuing the ideals that motivated them to go to school in the first place. They have to take on jobs they hate in order to pay their loans, which ends up making them miserable, unhappy, and ultimately sick. The tax codes should be rewritten to allow debt ridden folks to deduct a lot more than they currently deduct, the student loan industry ought to be strictly regulated and interest rates capped. Moreover, government grants and subsidized loans ought to be increased. Ultimately, school should be paid for from the taxes we pay, as in the civilized Scandinavian North. Meanwhile, in the US we pay comparable taxes, but the money goes to support Halliburton, Kellog, Blackwater, and Bechtel, not to mention the large oil conglomerates. Disgusting. Unacceptable. Unconscionable. And the only reason it has persisted for so long is because people overall aren't educated enough to see through the scam. Hope is on the way with Obama, however!
posted on 03/11/2008 04:21:30 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Jeff W. wrote:
Dear Madam,

I believe that it depends on what field of education an individual is pursuing. The market already creates a strong incentive for people to get JDs and MBAs, but individuals looking to get a PhD in the sciences and arts do not have the same level of financial incentives. One of the roles of public policy is to subsidize positive externalities; more professors and fewer lawyers cannot be a terrible thing.
posted on 03/11/2008 02:58:57 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Jade Green wrote:
Dear Madam,

This debate is like saying should we have pure capitalism or communism, the truth is both would be horribly unfair on most. What is needed is a mix to engage and include as many as possible in the education system while giving them plenty of incentives to achieve.

To do my masters I took out a large student loan (in New Zealand) to fund my studies, I knew I had to pay it back so I had motivation although I like to think I was smart enough to be motivated regardless. The government did however give me a low rate of interest and does fund the Universities to a large degree. I believe this balance is the best options. Students should not be overly advantaged because of parental wealth, the government should allow universities to charge as much as a student is realistically able to borrow.
posted on 03/11/2008 02:22:49 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
perbjarne wrote:
Dear Madam,

I suggest that the proposition will be valid in some societies, but invalid in others. In our country, Chile, public universities are expensive; the monthly tuition charge is roughly equivalent to 50% of a high school teacher's salary. Financial aid is scarce, and only for the lower income groups, lower than the high school teacher. Chile is also a highly stratified society; all through the educational system, lower classes are excluded from quality education. In our situation, the government is the only institution that can provide opportunities for the mid to lower class youth.
posted on 03/11/2008 00:17:36 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Kristin H. wrote:
Dear Madam,

Professor Alison Wolf worries that universities funded by the government will end up being beholden to it, and this will detract from their mission as independent institutions devoted to learning. This is certainly a reasonable fear. However, a University that depends heavily on student payments faces a similar problem--one that will be familiar to many who have studied or taught at colleges and universities in the US. Particularly when schools have small endowments, students are viewed as "consumers," and the type and quality of the courses on offer is marketed toward perceived demand. Since many students feel they must obtain a college degree in order to earn a decent living but are not necessarily interested in learning per se, Universities end up offering many courses of study with little content and pressure their professors to hand out high grades. This keeps their student "consumers" happy but contributes little to their education. Here in the U.S. we end up with institutions that are cowed, not by the government, but by their paying students. I am afraid this situation is not unique to schools with small endowments--grade inflation at Ivy League schools is rampant and is driven by complaints from paying students (or more often, their paying parents). Thus, relying on payments from students who care more about grades than learning results in a situation very similar to relying on payments from the government--a loss of autonomy and a decline in rigor. There is no easy fix for this problem!
posted on 02/11/2008 23:17:14 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Dudz wrote:
Dear Madam,
I am glad to see this debate in action, thank you! Higher education is indeed a right, it should be offered to anyone regardless of financial background. However, financial assistance for higher education ought to be subject to the student's academic performance on an annual funding process. If the student performs at an excellent rate in their first year of post-secondary education, their second's year tuition should be entirely subsidized. Similarly, if the student has very poor post-secondary notes their tuition would lack funding, since students ought to show the tax-payer that academia is in-fact a logical pursuit. However, there is a golden mean in this process; average academic performance requires average financial assistance. Essentially, financials for higher education should be funded by the nation’s taxpayers, similar to the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP), implemented by the Department of Education in Ontario Canada. OSAP offers loan and grants in consideration of academic performance, along with and not selected too financial background and mobility issues.
Cheers,
Dudz
posted on 02/11/2008 22:46:10 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Rubio spain wrote:
Dear Madam,
I believe on public higher education, based on academic merits, not on the family purchasing power.
I don't agree with the argument that people who arent making use of higher education shouldn't pay taxes for it, so it has to be private. I pay taxes for lots of things that i don't use and will never do it.
The Government decides how to spend public money and higher education is one of the best ones.
posted on 02/11/2008 21:18:58 pm Recommended (1) Report abuse
Fabio DG wrote:
I think that the issue can be viewed from at least two alternative sides:

- if you agree that education's objective is essentially signaling abilities to future employers, whatever their kind may be, then the private-paying perspective becomes more substantial; it would be akin to paying for a course testifying your ability to learn at a given pace, at to complete tasks in a given amount of time (which is indeed what many education programs consist of).

- if you agree that the education's objective is teaching skills that can be then further used for whatever type of task you are going to be engaged in, then it would be interest of the state to give free access to the people that are more tailored for the given set of skills, given that it almost surely benefit the future GDP. In actuality, this attitude is already employed by top European schools like the Ecole Normale, where the students are paid to learn. This ensues optimality because the student has a double incentive towards depth of knowledge: 1) he (she) does not need to worry about earning money to live 2) he (she) does need to worry about learning in order to keep earning money to live. Thus at the very least students will perform at the level required to keep their stiped, whereas the most energetic and motivated will be able to devote their time fully to the advancement of human's knowledge.

What, instead, we should all accept, is that life outcomes are largely determined by luck: it's luck to be born smart, it's luck to be born in a wealthy family, it's luck to be born in Paris (or San Francisco, or Milan) and not in Lilongwe, it's also luck to be born "motivated" or "energetic".
posted on 02/11/2008 20:16:16 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Popa_Eng wrote:
Dear Madam,
I do not agree with the proposition.
First,there should be -at least in theory -equality of chance for all the young people.Temptations of leisure or getting quickly on the salary already take a great toll of the high school people.
A second view is that all should have a chance but the tax-funded position should be available only by contest.Then it become a question of personal merit to graduate the university and that will be the motivation for young people ,between all the world distraction.
And a third argument to oppose the proposition is that we shouldn't accept all the complaints against the lack of performance of the subsidy graduates (or stated funded universities) as long as there could be put on work good criteria by the same entity that provide the funds.In this way ,being demanding with student and teachers as well,not all the student should necessarily flood the labor market eventually!Only the fitted!In this respect it would be better for the future society to become a meritocracy.
The wealthy people that are already in the elite and want to keep the same status for their siblings ,have lot of expensive universities to choose from(very good and indeed competitive!) The private universities will welcome them.But the society should keep the flow of incoming student at high level ,at the entrance in the third level of grades if the progress and civilisation are the goal .
posted on 02/11/2008 19:32:59 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
studentNYC wrote:
Dear Madam, I need all the help I can get. Too expensive by myself. I want a post-graduate education after I graduate this spring. I am on my own, need assistant to complete the dream. Most who reach a post-graduate education give back so others can follow. Let's keep the movement going up, not down. A student.
posted on 02/11/2008 19:09:11 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
don ho wrote:
Dear Madam,

The individual benefits from the degree more than the state does -- especially if that person moves to another country. That the average taxpayer will not attend these schools makes the injustice harder to bear. Since the poor would be bearing the costs while the rich (or middle class) benefit, this is a regressive tax.

Another problem with "free" education is that students have little invested in their education; so, they pick courses that are easy but have little demand outside. For instance, in California are thousands of people with humanities degrees who can't find jobs in their fields. They have invaded fields that traditionally did not require degrees and put non-college people (who helped pay for those degrees) at a disadvantage.

Since money and resources are scarce, they would be more efficiently used if the beneficiary paid the lion's share of his bill. Poor people could attend on scholarship. And everyone would benefit from better career guidance.
posted on 02/11/2008 16:06:18 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Sonny PC wrote:
Dear Madam, I favour a sytem like the danish where individuals are offered the opportunity to further their education according to their aptitude and attitude, as oppossed to their economic status. Taxes are paid also accordingly, in order to support such system.
posted on 02/11/2008 15:29:48 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Moh_L wrote:
Dear Madam,
As I would like to comment on this topic, Ms Helen Joyce said most of the governments around the world encourage young people to go to tertiary level of education. However, I noticed that there will be a limited amount of jobs as the world is shrinking by technology and as a result of current financial crisis. I'm afraid that a huge number of graduates will face a problem with that.
For this point,how can the government policies help the employment of those graduates and how can they prepare for the higher rate of unemployment?
posted on 02/11/2008 13:06:49 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Geert1 wrote:
Dear Madam,

Human infrastructure, like physical infrastructure, is the backbone of the economy. Just like with roads, private initiative is not sufficient to make it work.

Moreover, the example of the US has proven that in privatized education there are incentives leading to education as a luxury brand instead of an education with content.
posted on 02/11/2008 09:08:11 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
PhylogenyRevealsCompassion wrote:
Dear Madam,

It is my opinion that it can be argued that the passing on of information can be shown to be the first condition to be satisfied in an established criteria for life, I feel that the passing on of information is critical for not just the evolution of life, but the sustaining of life.

To this end, I would further argue that a true educator, not just anyone who is hired to educate, holds one of the two essential and noble professions.

To denegrate the acquisition of knowledge to something as worthless as the acquisition of wealth is beyond reproach. So the argument made by Professor Wolf is worthless.

With my apologies for expressing my opinion before addressing the question posed, I am against the proposition, with a caveat.

Those who mistake net worth for self worth (one does not imply the other) should spend time in intropection before they teach regardless of their achievements. I believe our educators should value kindness, compassion, and knowledge far above the collecting of "shiny things".

I believe our educators should be taken care of very well, however, if they feel the need to indulge in the meaningless, they may need some education themselves.

In conclusion, if it is necessary to for all of us to contribute for all of us find higher education available, then all of us should contribute. There is a lengthy precident proving that overlooking anyone who wants "higher" education is overlooking the everyone.

If one follows the patterns in evolution over the last few billion years, one never knows where brilliance may shine and if someone wants a chance to learn, they should get it.
posted on 02/11/2008 07:29:32 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
nezahualcoyotl wrote:
Dear Madam,
I oppose the proposition on the grounds of fairness and equal opportunities. Education is the key factor of social mobility, and I believe anyone who has academic potential to go to university should be able to do so, regardless of what kind of household they are born to. The Nordic model shows that higher living standards and low economic inequality can be achieved in a model where students need not worry about paying their tuition fees. Education is a good that produces positive externalities, meaning that everyone benefits from being surrounded by highly educated individuals. To put it simply, more educated individuals are more productive and therefore push wages up in the long run. The same argument goes for healthcare. Or for highways and transport infrastructure: everyone benefits from it, and everyone should pay for it through progressive taxes. These are goods that make countries better off and have long lasting effects. Even if you don't have children, contributing towards your country's (and the world's) higher education will benefit you. Leaving higher education to the market will lead to elitism and a huge burden on less well-off students and their families or, even worse, the decision of many students to avoid university altogether. Why do some students, by sheer luck, have to graduate with brutal debts on their shoulders or work 20 hours a week sacrificing sleep and social life, while their richer peers are having the time of their lives?
posted on 02/11/2008 04:58:39 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Mikhail S wrote:
Dear Madam,

The proposition has itself indicated the most important benefits of education - a growing middle class, increased social mobility, and a large return to society on the investment in education. It has failed so far to demonstrate why society as a whole should not pursue these valuable goals.

The proposition's strongest argument contrasts American K-12 education with higher education, arguing that higher education has excelled due to the fact that students are responsible for the fees the institutions of higher education charge. Highly subsidized State Universities, however, perform just as well as private Universities, and even the most expensive Universities usually offer tuition waivers to those students who are not able to pay. And there is little indication that private K-12 education in America is performing much better than its beleagued public counterpart.

I am not convinced by the proposition's arguments that education works better when it is not subsidized, and I believe strongly that education helps society as a whole reach the important goals of social mobility, tolerance, and growth.

For these reasons I stand opposed to the resolution before this house.
posted on 02/11/2008 02:42:24 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Concerned Canadian wrote:
Dear Madam,

I am a firm believer that everyone must make their own life for themselves and not have a head start, in terms of money or networks, thanks to their parents.

Why is the current line of where the state stops paying for education right after secondary school? Every year of education one has makes them a better candidate than someone who doesn't have that year; in other words a someone who has completed grade twelve has a brighter future than someone who has only completed grade seven, both of which are funded by the state. In the same way a student who has an undergraduate degree has a brighter future than someone with only a high school diploma, only the latter being currently paid by the state. There is no tangible line between the two levels, just as there is no tangible line between primary and secondary school. If one completes the the first, they are entitled, in my opinion, to go on the the second.

Simply going to university is enough of a financial burden. Between working a reasonable amount during the school year and full-time in the summer a student has just enough to live a somewhat comfortable life. Once you have to throw tuition their way that only means that they will have to work more during the school year, in which case their marks will suffer.

Australian Actuary wrote:
Dear Madam,
Individuals, collectively, make up the state. Those people arguing that the State should pay are simply arguing that their costs should be subsidised by other people. That is a political question to be argued over until the cows come home. However, the real crux of this issue is the damage done to the quality of education when it is paid for by the State. There is no ceteris parabus statement allowed here; the education outcomes are different when paid for by the State than when paid for by the users. I vote 'Yes'.
posted on 02/11/2008 00:22:51 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
ozatmk wrote:
Dear Madam,
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
Currently in the UK, students choose arts or commerce subjects over engineering & science. I think those that demonstrate an aptitude for engineering & science should get assistance with their higher education costs.
My conclusion is that where a nation needs a particular set of skills, then it should encourage those with an aptitude to develope the skills. The best way to do this is to make sure that these people do not have to worry about paying tuition fees or living costs whilst studying. When the student qualifies then the nation reaps the benefit of a skilled individual.
posted on 02/11/2008 00:04:10 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
lpsy wrote:
Dear Madam,

At this point, I find myself leaning towards the opposition for two key reasons.

The first, ironically, derives from something Prof. Wolf touched on in her opening statement: that today, "social mobility... is ever more dependent on having a degree." Indeed, the level of general knowledge of the population is at a much higher level today than it was a century - and arguably even a mere generation - ago, and thus increasingly greater levels of education are necessary for social success. And so this seems to call into question the issue as to where the line for publicly funded education should be redrawn. As it is known to the living generations of the developed world, public education is a given up to the secondary level. But, one can imagine that a similar debate must have occurred in the societies that preceded our own - societies whom, in the face of a similarly increasing level of general knowledge, must have first also questioned the merits of providing free and equal access to secondary eduction for the entire population. Ultimately, they did redraw the line. Our world today is still constantly becoming more and more knowledgeable and intelligent - with so much to learn, 12 years of schooling may simply not be enough. And so the issue for us, then, is not whether the line on public funding for education should be redrawn yet again, but instead, whether today is the appropriate time to redraw that line.

The second comes from my perspective of education being a benefit not solely to the individual owner of that education, but to his society as whole as well. The prime example would be in the advent of computers and the Internet, an example that has been used far too often, but only perhaps because it holds so true. In this light, then, education can be viewed as a positive externality. And upon this assumption, it can in turn be argued that the ineffeciencies arising from subsidizing education, which Ms. Joyce points out in her opening remarks, are moot. Instead, public funding for higher education can be viewed as a Pigovian subsidy - the opposite of a Pigovian tax that economists increasingly argue for as a counter to the inefficiencies brought on by negative market activities. In the case of higher education, the end result, then, is that the seeming inefficiencies of public funding for higher education are, in actuality, mere reparations for the inherent inefficiencies resulting from society's misperceptions of the value of higher education.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 01/11/2008 23:15:13 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Sheldon Spithoff wrote:
Dear Madam,
The topic of higher education is quite interesting and complex. Several principles are at play when considering the question of whether or not to fund the students.
When addressing higher learning it is important to recognize there is a market system at work for university students. There is a supply and demand function for people with the right skills – lawyers, doctors, chemists, engineers, teachers, civil servants, etc. However, these jobs require certain qualifications that are hard to achieve. This difficulty strangles the supply of job applicants giving them leverage for higher wages. This is not a good thing for society – a skewed supply curve never is.
Therefore, society and the public would benefit by having an increased flow of university and college grads entering the workforce. Providing public funds, while also skewing aggregate supply and demand function through increased taxation, would help alleviate the higher educated labor crunch by opening the doors to the financially challenged.
Likewise, as with any market, it is necessary that the higher-education system is open to viable competition between the accredited degree and diploma suppliers. For this reason a voucher system, rather than the current emphasis on grants, would make the university and college markets leaner and productivity savvy. Private grants, based on a more basic principle of free market investments achieve both the optimal desire for competition, individual freedom and supplementary funds for “pure science” research.
Another factor to consider in this debate surrounds the idea that people are more productive when working at the job they like. If this particular job happens to require a university degree then many potentially fruitful workers may miss their optimal position due to financial constraints. This is especially true in the modern economy were careers are short-lived and middle-age men and women, with bills and children find themselves laid off. Retraining at public expense by shifting the worker into a field of their interest is the economically prudent choice.
It is necessary to note that the education process, in itself, is not productive to society, but is rather a necessary step needed to achieve the goal of greater productivity. Therefore, it is not in society’s best interest to have more than the necessary numbers of people for more than the necessary amounts of time sitting in classrooms.
For this reason it is necessary to stop people, such as myself, who love the academia lifestyle from abusing the system and staying inappropriately long at institutions of higher learning. The

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 01/11/2008 14:49:26 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Nwabueze wrote:
Dear Madam,Education remains a public good that every Government delights in providing for her people;government should in her capacity provide higher education for the people.Those who can afford to fund can do so but those who cannot do that government should extend a helping hand to that effect.Education is vital and must be made available for all by the government.
posted on 01/11/2008 13:47:37 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
vonhist wrote:
Dear Madam,
I live and study in Australia, which has a user pays system. The number of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds has dropped since user pays was introduced. Education should be available for all and in the long term, benefits all. Access to University should be based on merit, not money!
posted on 01/11/2008 12:38:11 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

pughcarrolray wrote:
Dear Madam, There are many that cannot afford to pay for Higher Education. There are many good people that are lefted out because they cannot pay for the high cost of Higher Education. I am one that cannot afford the coust of Higher Education. Thank you.
posted on 01/11/2008 10:17:11 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Javed Rashid wrote:
Dear Madam,
I would contend that education should be available to all who qualify irrespective of thoer ability to pay fpr that education .The State should ensure that education is available to all who deserve it and are trhe msot qualified to be educated . No deservibng candidate shoild eb deprived meerely due to lack of resources. this can of course be handled in different ways including soft loans etc.
posted on 01/11/2008 08:14:06 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Microstructure wrote:
Dear Madam,
Taking education is a human right. Why then should humans pay money to get their right?
posted on 01/11/2008 06:24:16 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
BoomerU wrote:
Dear Madam,
Taxes pay for things that others don’t want to pay for, like making the world a better place.

If there is a requirement for graduates to demonstrate they are making the world a better place, the state should pay for the education.

But don’t tell anyone! It’s a secret!

Knowledge, or putting that education to work, is mobile. It goes with the individual.

The taxpayer would not want to know their money is making the world a better place, they would rather have a beer. If the politicians find out that knowledge is portable, they would loose their jobs for trying to make the world a better place. If the teachers find out that taxpayers are paying, they will want more of that tax money for themselves, rather than increase the availability of a high quality education, which might end up making the world a better place. If corporations find out, they will want tax cuts to increase profits and pay higher bonuses, rather than make the world a better place. Don’t tell the nonprofits, because they will want a bigger piece of the tax pie.

Remember, pay for the education, but don't tell anyone! It's a secret!
posted on 01/11/2008 01:21:35 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
George Juan wrote:
Dear Madam,

I think that obtaining higher education is a huge investment by an individual in terms of time, effort and money (even without university fees). It must be supported by the society if we do not want to discourage many talented individuals who want to study subjects such as basic sciences.

I believe that well-being of modern societies is based on advancement of science and technology. But careers in science are much less predictable than those in law or medicine. We cannot expect individuals too take all the risks while most of the rewards will go to the society.
posted on 01/11/2008 01:06:41 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
avaiki wrote:
. . .

dear madam,

Astonishing isn't it?

After 150 years penning exquiste pro-capitalist propaganda, The Economist finds most readers still see a role for the state.

With the majority, my vote goes to the Nordic model, with higher education part of national infrastructure.

Too important, in other words, to be left to whimsy and caprice within allegedly free markets, no matter how hard The Economist tries to exhort ever greater free marketeering.

Capitalism may have brought economic growth as this newspaper notes - but what kind of economy - and what kind of growth?

In the last 150 years, the Economist has gone from a brave voice of reason in an often uncivilised world, savage, untamed, seemingly limitless in resources.

Arguably ably, capitalism emerged to fill the void; option opportunities and pursue profits, enveloping the globe and visiting the moon for good measure.

Sadly, what was once a void is now almost null and void.

Resources are now seen as limited, even if technology to exploit those resources is not. A sceptic or two scoff at doomsdayers but economic holocaust is already here, now - 30,000 people die a day, from easily avoidable starvation and disease. More people live in slavery now than before.

This is an economy?

This is growth?

I note The Economist has already reported negative growth among MBA outlets - except those making ethics a core study. Capitalism may be many things but, in practice, ethical it is not.

Like today's MBA students, I suspect your readers are similarly ahead of the curve.

jason brown
aotearoa

. . .
posted on 01/11/2008 01:01:54 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Ookiedookie wrote:
Dear Madam,
Like everything in economics, education comes at an opportunity cost. That can be huge considering how much unearned income we have to give up to obtain higher education. That expense is substantial and individuals, especially smart ones, are painfully aware of it. On the other hand, the benefits of learning are not as immediately palpable as the costs. Indeed, the benefits of general education are often vague and distant. In these circumstances, the choice a sober decision-maker opts for is work, not study. But we know full well that more educated people make for a better society. Thus it is socially rational, albeit individually irrational, to go to school. In a model with self-funding only, we are dealing with the kind of Nash equilibrium where fewer people are educated than is socially desirable. That miserable situation can only be avoided by encouraging more higher education. And the only way to do that is for the state to give scholarships and other types of financial aid.
posted on 01/11/2008 00:57:16 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
IL SARDO wrote:
Dear Madam,
posted on 01/11/2008 00:49:55 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Justinian Maximus wrote:
Dear Madam,
I disagree with Professor Alison Wolf because there are middle-class students who can't pay for their higher education. By the way, governments should spend more money for universities; actually, European countries spend around $10,000 per student against $22,000 in America. According to The Economist'article published in June 2008, only 24% of working-age Europeans have a degree, compared with 39% of Americans.
posted on 01/11/2008 00:47:03 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
IL SARDO wrote:
Dear Madam,Governments should pay for wars.
Governments should pay farmers for not farming.
Governments should pay big business for becoming
bigger. Governments should pay politicians and
their families for every luxury, including private
jets, as long as those politicians do not pay
taxes. Governments should hound taxpayers until
they are caught and then thrown into jail

Governments should allow the sick to become sicker
and the pharmaceutical companies to become richer.

Governments should not pay for higher education,
middle education or lower education for anyone
who is not in government bureaucrat or who is not a good friend of a governmental bureaucrat.

If the government were to pay for higher education
some very intelligent people might remain in
the US and they might cause trouble.

No government wants that.
posted on 01/11/2008 00:47:01 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
Marzot wrote:
Dear Madam,

Most government subsidies lead to lower prices for consumers, but a study from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, claims that this is not the case for higher education.

The ultimate reason is that the nature of the subsidies and the peculiar characteristics of the market for higher education encourage schools to raise their prices when the students’ ability to pay increases.

Systemic increases in tuition across the board indicate that the structure of the higher education market plays a fundamental role in encouraging these increases.

Part of the problem is that public policy attempts to subsidize attendance for too many students on the assumption that this will increase access to higher education. These subsidies, intended to make college more affordable, are ineffective because schools maximize prestige rather than profit, and because the lack of any measure of their output rules out normal price competition.

These characteristics imply that subsidies will not lower the financial burden of higher education for students, as colleges and universities raise prices to exploit the increased ability to pay that the subsidies bring about.
posted on 01/11/2008 00:39:52 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
IL SARDO wrote:
Dear Madam,
posted on 01/11/2008 00:23:29 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
JHG-MR wrote:
Dear Madam,
We in the United States have affordable education for all that choose to learn. We have institutions of higher learning of every caliber and at every level of cost. We have young people taking advantage of grants, scholarships and loans to complete their education. I feel everything of value has a price. In order to develop a mind and therefore better society, the individual has a responsibility to himself to help fund their higher education and the state has a responsibility to society to help with funding that will educate who are able but cannot afford the faire. If there is no involvement by the state, we will revert to a society of distinct classes, which in the past has sparked more than one revolution.
posted on 01/11/2008 00:19:51 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
mrmouse wrote:
Dear Madam,I believe all students who qualify for a place in higher education for their first degree should have a government supported position. This is particularly important for generalist degrees - science, mathematics, humanities - rather than those that are purely vocational - law, medicine, business. There is no greater resource than a nations human capital. There is no greater measure of civilization than the fostering of intellectual thought in all people - and that means encouraging thinking and learning, not just earning.
posted on 01/11/2008 00:15:07 am Recommended (0) Report abuse
mataylor16 wrote:
Dear Madam,
I doubt there is any substantive correlation between ability to pay and aptitude to learn. Therefore, the system could be best utilized by those who intend to take full advantage of the intellectual opportunities available, not those who can afford the cost of admittance.
posted on 31/10/2008 23:13:31 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Sandibek wrote:
Dear Madam,

I believe that students should earn their education by performing at their optimal capacities prior to university. At that point, the state should undertake to develop the talents of these successful aspirants so that they will later enter the labor force fully equipped to make their contributions in their specializations.

It appears that this discussion is restricted to the USA model, where almost any education beyond primitive capabilities occurs in a university setting. That leads to the enormous number of pay-to-play colleges of no substance, the delay of education and development of talent, the diminution of the value of skilled professions that do not require a university training, and the general tendency to separate college graduates and place them where they generally do nothing productive in financial institutions which are being recapitalized at the key expense of those who never entered higher education.
posted on 31/10/2008 22:46:26 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Ookiedookie wrote:
Dear Madam,
It's all in Chapter 10 of every freshman econ principles text. Education is a positive externality. That means that free market can't provide a socially optimal level of it. To be brutally technical, the social demand curve is always above the private demand for such goods. Therefore the government must increase the private demand (by means of scholarships, stipends, etc.) for the private market demand to shift out and coincide with the social demand. Otherwise we end up underconsuming.
posted on 31/10/2008 22:23:52 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
D.B. Shine wrote:
Dear Madam,
As an American and a teacher in a school run by a private company for a public school system. I see many faults with the private sector but I've also see the problems of public education. All of this is at the lower level or pre university. The pre university level leave much to be desired, but the ideas of reform have crept in, which our good.
I personally think it is a good idea to charge students for the very simple reason they will take their studies seriously or else they will flunk out and still be forced to pay off that debt.
posted on 31/10/2008 22:19:14 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
AA wrote:
Dear Madam,
I am a student at a large state university in the US and it is generally considered one of the top 10 or 15 best research universities in the world. Now I feel that higher education to a certain extent must be subsidized for the student provided the student has the aptitude to learn and the want to pursue knowledge. The argument that subsidized higher education will reduce the motivation of the students is flawed because when students who want to learn feel that they are been given an extraordinary opportunity to learn without worrying about the costs they will be able to focus on their education in a better manner, even if they don't the subsidized tuition can be tied to performance which will force the student to be motivated. Having a education system of motivated and focused individuals will increase the quality of the graduates and in turn provide a nation with greater intellectual capitol.
On the subject of countries in which such education is already greatly subsidized such as India having their intellectual capitol fleeing can actually be seen as success of the system because these graduates have the necessary skills and enjoy greater success or at least success at par with the skills of graduates of western universities who payed up to $300k for their education.
posted on 31/10/2008 22:16:09 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
IrrationalMan wrote:
Dear Madam,

The issue is better framed as what proportion of higher education costs should a student pay, which could vary from 0 to 100%. That is because the proposition as stated, as Prof. Breneman notes, excludes the equally valid alternative of combined personal and state finance.

Here are some propositions to guide the determination of each student's state subsidy: First, unlike primary and secondary education, not all people need or are suited for higher education. Second, human capital development through higher education is an essential social good. Third, substantial state resources, both finance and academic enrichment, should be available to prospective students from disadvantaged backgrounds to reduce the tragic waste of human capital and potential. Fourth, state subsidy should be on an individual, not institutional, basis. It should be determined first on merit, with due adjustment for disadvantaged background, and then reduced for family and personal ability to pay. Fifth, because loans create an incentive to pursue high paying jobs regardless of social benefit compared with scholarships, state support should be the latter and loans should be used only as needed for the student's share.
posted on 31/10/2008 22:16:00 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Jamie wrote:
Dear Madam,

I am a recent graduate from a Master's program in California and feel really compelled to comment on this debate. I believe our higher education system works fairly well here in California, where state universities and community colleges receive tax payer support but individuals are still responsible for paying a large proportion of the fees.

I come from a working class background and am the first person to go to college from either side of my family. The community college option here made getting a degree a more realistic and accessible option for me. I collected relatively little debt earning my Bachelor's degree because I spent my first two years in community college and worked as a waitress while finishing up my upper division coursework at UCLA. Private school certainly would have been prohibitively expensive for someone like me.

I did feel that I valued my education much more than a lot of the other students I encountered in university because I had to work a lot harder for it. I also, however, became much more aware of the disadvantages I faced in our class-divided society. These are not just economic disadvantages--they are also social. Middle class kids are much more exposed to culture, travel, and the world of professionals. They have support networks that go beyond money. For example, most of their parents had attended college themselves and can therefore identify with the experience. They have advice and support to offer. I felt these differences even more in my Master's program, where most of my colleagues' parents held advanced degrees and contributed substantially to their education. I, however, am now in debt up to my ears on account of going to grad school. And my parents continue to point out how my construction worker brother who did not complete high school earns more than I do.

I do think that the over consumption problem is a real one here. So many jobs for which a university education is completely unnecessary now require their entry-level employees to have degrees. The value of a college degree in this generation is probably the equivalent of a high school diploma for past generations. This makes college even more important in terms of social mobility and I do not think that is a good thing.

Here in the US, I think that if we had a stronger labor movement and if we cultivated a culture of learning by investing in primary and secondary education as well as libraries and the arts, we could achieve some of the goals Prof. Flodstrom mentions without some of the disadvantages Prof. Wolf points out.

Cheers,

Jamie
posted on 31/10/2008 22:05:33 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
roy77 wrote:
Dear Madam,

I strongly believe that we have the freedom of opportunity in the United States, which does not include a blanket guarantee funded by taxpayers. I have been a student for most of my adult life and I have seen the real problem...and it's not a lack of money coming from the state.

In California, the state provides a yearly grant to student going to college. The universities charge students more than the grant. This is where the rubber meets the road. The gap between the fees and the grants has to be closed by LOANS.

When I entered dental school, this gap grew even wider...and the state, nor the federal government could close the gap. This is where deregulation, in my opinion, allowed GradPLUS loans to offer students huge sums of money (based on negotiated eligibility amounts - set by universities) to pay for higher education.

In summary, we should look more at the practices of private student lenders and their university ties, rather than throw more money into the system on the backs of taxpayers.

Trust me, I wish I had help with the huge amount of debt that I bear...but I don't think that it will fix a system for future generations.

By the way, I owe $300K in student loans.

Sincerely,

Roy

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 31/10/2008 21:12:40 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

David wrote:

Dear Madam, higher education is an investment in human capital, the labor pool of the underlying country, and should not be viewed as an entitlement. Ironically, there are many tax breaks to corporations for capital expenditures, yet companies always complain that they cannot find qualified employees. More importantly, an educated labor pool enhances productivity, a key determinant of economic growth. Therefore, because higher education is ultimately a public good, government should be investing in its human capital.

posted on 31/10/2008 21:03:07 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

grigg wrote:

Dear Madam,

Why not give people the freedom of choice.

Those that believe education should be so to speak "free" for students of "poor" (who's the judge of that) background because that is "better" (although unfair and disincentivising) for progress and society are free to donate voluntarily to scholarship funds. Nobody denies them that right... I don't see though why they are entitled to enforce their view on everybody else. Is this democracy?! Not in my dictionary.

posted on 31/10/2008 20:48:37 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Justinian Maximus wrote:

Dear Madam,
I think governments would must offer the vast majority of students the chance to get higher education at low university fees.

posted on 31/10/2008 20:13:37 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

G.Pringle wrote:

Dear Madam, Government funded 'free' anything has never worked adequately. Not health care, not policing, and certainly not education. We will never have the quality of education that we need until we sharpen the focus onto those who are willing to make the financial commitment necessary to pay for their personal benefits from it. Some students from backgrounds of personal wealth will take places from those less fortunate but better able. But, if you look, that is true of every facet of life in every political system. Stop fighting it. Governments' role should be limited to pubic funding of the truly able and needy, but only on a cost recovery basis. Professor Wolf's assertion is the correct one.

posted on 31/10/2008 19:47:29 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Oklamom wrote:

Dear Madam,
Institutions of higher learning have always been supported by their graduates and/or by the state. I was one of the first in my family to graduate from college. I and my parents paid for tuition and housing, but I went to a state university that was also supported by the tax payers, and I am grateful to them. I think your question is too simplistic. We can not have institutions of excellence without public support, but I also believe that those using those institutions should have to contribute to it through tuitions. If we want a vital economy, educated citizens are a requirement.

posted on 31/10/2008 18:59:04 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

PKJ PIYUSH wrote:

Dear Madam,
not all bright and talented individuals are capable of funding their higher education. money shouldnot become a factor stopping them from pursuing their dreams. the nation also looses productive resource if these talents go waste. it is thus a nations responsibility to fund higher education of individuals whcih they can pay back once they become capable enough. creating a win win situation for the nation and humanity at lerge.

posted on 31/10/2008 18:58:00 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

god bless us wrote:

Dear Madam,
Professor Wolf’s points lack sufficient arguments although with an impression of the Poor’s fighter. All her arguments concentrate on this the tax-payers are not totally the beneficiary of higher education and what she means by that is a lot of ordinary people pay their tax but only a few of their children benefit from their parents’ contribution as most of the students go to college are kids from middle class families.
The misunderstanding can be illustrated by the following:
1, it is commonsense that the number of the middle class’s kids entering into college is greater because the society is composed of middle classes and their number is in leading position. Another reason would this the scope of middle class is enlarged with the improvement of living condition and now most of them can just barely have a decent life in a sustained way which means further education of their children is absolutely necessary.
2, it is idealism for all the poor to utterly change their social position through higher education of their children, but it is definitely impossible. One can’t deprive the right of education of the middle class and the rich after all they contribute more in the construction of university as they earn more and pay more tax. On the other hand, the whole society is also facing the pressure of competitiveness and their kids are also highly motivated for further education. If only university teach something practical and suitable for society but not just utterly useless material, they definitely will also come to learn.
Another point of Professor Wolf is self-paid students are more diligent than government-paid students which in fact is an illusion. Here a selective bias problem arises which contributes to this illusion. First we need assume an assumption which is well supported by commonsense: the student number when they have to pay their own fees will exceed the number when they don’t in a great extent. So when it comes to the situation of self-paid education, kids who are more eager to knowledge will choose to pay and others choose to work or just stay at home considering the expensive expense and their lack of willingness to learn. After this selection, the diligent and so called good kids stay and therefore giving us this illusion.
I am against the proposition but I am quite disappointed with the argument of Professor Flodstrom as his position is obviously ambiguous at first and he abruptly gives some seemingly firm conclusion in the end which is not convincing.

posted on 31/10/2008 18:35:34 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Dcoolbreeze wrote:

Dear Madam,

This is very pertinent from a Western viewpoint. H

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 31/10/2008 21:12:40 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
David wrote:
Dear Madam, higher education is an investment in human capital, the labor pool of the underlying country, and should not be viewed as an entitlement. Ironically, there are many tax breaks to corporations for capital expenditures, yet companies always complain that they cannot find qualified employees. More importantly, an educated labor pool enhances productivity, a key determinant of economic growth. Therefore, because higher education is ultimately a public good, government should be investing in its human capital.
posted on 31/10/2008 21:03:07 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
grigg wrote:
Dear Madam,

Why not give people the freedom of choice.

Those that believe education should be so to speak "free" for students of "poor" (who's the judge of that) background because that is "better" (although unfair and disincentivising) for progress and society are free to donate voluntarily to scholarship funds. Nobody denies them that right... I don't see though why they are entitled to enforce their view on everybody else. Is this democracy?! Not in my dictionary.
posted on 31/10/2008 20:48:37 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Justinian Maximus wrote:
Dear Madam,
I think governments would must offer the vast majority of students the chance to get higher education at low university fees.
posted on 31/10/2008 20:13:37 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
G.Pringle wrote:
Dear Madam, Government funded 'free' anything has never worked adequately. Not health care, not policing, and certainly not education. We will never have the quality of education that we need until we sharpen the focus onto those who are willing to make the financial commitment necessary to pay for their personal benefits from it. Some students from backgrounds of personal wealth will take places from those less fortunate but better able. But, if you look, that is true of every facet of life in every political system. Stop fighting it. Governments' role should be limited to pubic funding of the truly able and needy, but only on a cost recovery basis. Professor Wolf's assertion is the correct one.
posted on 31/10/2008 19:47:29 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Oklamom wrote:
Dear Madam,
Institutions of higher learning have always been supported by their graduates and/or by the state. I was one of the first in my family to graduate from college. I and my parents paid for tuition and housing, but I went to a state university that was also supported by the tax payers, and I am grateful to them. I think your question is too simplistic. We can not have institutions of excellence without public support, but I also believe that those using those institutions should have to contribute to it through tuitions. If we want a vital economy, educated citizens are a requirement.
posted on 31/10/2008 18:59:04 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
PKJ PIYUSH wrote:
Dear Madam,
not all bright and talented individuals are capable of funding their higher education. money shouldnot become a factor stopping them from pursuing their dreams. the nation also looses productive resource if these talents go waste. it is thus a nations responsibility to fund higher education of individuals whcih they can pay back once they become capable enough. creating a win win situation for the nation and humanity at lerge.
posted on 31/10/2008 18:58:00 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
god bless us wrote:
Dear Madam,
Professor Wolf’s points lack sufficient arguments although with an impression of the Poor’s fighter. All her arguments concentrate on this the tax-payers are not totally the beneficiary of higher education and what she means by that is a lot of ordinary people pay their tax but only a few of their children benefit from their parents’ contribution as most of the students go to college are kids from middle class families.
The misunderstanding can be illustrated by the following:
1, it is commonsense that the number of the middle class’s kids entering into college is greater because the society is composed of middle classes and their number is in leading position. Another reason would this the scope of middle class is enlarged with the improvement of living condition and now most of them can just barely have a decent life in a sustained way which means further education of their children is absolutely necessary.
2, it is idealism for all the poor to utterly change their social position through higher education of their children, but it is definitely impossible. One can’t deprive the right of education of the middle class and the rich after all they contribute more in the construction of university as they earn more and pay more tax. On the other hand, the whole society is also facing the pressure of competitiveness and their kids are also highly motivated for further education. If only university teach something practical and suitable for society but not just utterly useless material, they definitely will also come to learn.
Another point of Professor Wolf is self-paid students are more diligent than government-paid students which in fact is an illusion. Here a selective bias problem arises which contributes to this illusion. First we need assume an assumption which is well supported by commonsense: the student number when they have to pay their own fees will exceed the number when they don’t in a great extent. So when it comes to the situation of self-paid education, kids who are more eager to knowledge will choose to pay and others choose to work or just stay at home considering the expensive expense and their lack of willingness to learn. After this selection, the diligent and so called good kids stay and therefore giving us this illusion.
I am against the proposition but I am quite disappointed with the argument of Professor Flodstrom as his position is obviously ambiguous at first and he abruptly gives some seemingly firm conclusion in the end which is not convincing.
posted on 31/10/2008 18:35:34 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Dcoolbreeze wrote:
Dear Madam,

This is very pertinent from a Western viewpoint. However spare a thought for the poorer countries like India, where engineering, MBA and other courses are highly subsidized by the Govt, effectively meaning that the govt is trying to raise the 'intellectual capital' for the benefit of the country. However, immediately after graduation, a large percentage of the students migrate to the US, UK and other affluent nations. Therefore, I disagree with Mr Flodström when he says that it is part of the infrastructure. Infrastructure does not move up and out! Now, I as a tax-payer, have a fundamental objection to paying for students who take my money and give nothing in return, either to me or the country.

If the Govt is paying, let them pay for those students who are unable to meet the payment of fees, and ensure that there a fair proportion of students is admitted from these middle- or lower-class families for whom the debt will be a burden. Loans need not be recovered immediately after starting to work. There can always a moratorium period after which repayment can start.

One reason for the interest in higher education, even if one is not capable, is the opinion of society in general about people who are not 'qualified'. Further, does the country have the capacity to absorb and gainfully employ those emerging from 'the hallowed portals of higher learning' once the Govt has paid for it?

So, the point here is that it neither this way or that, and each country needs to take a call that fits its needs. There is no one size fits all!
posted on 31/10/2008 18:00:24 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse
Teranleto wrote:
Dear Madam,
I´m closer to prof. Wolf, because in my view the proposition does not mean disdainig equal opportunities for poorest students. Some reasons:
1. Higher education is voluntary
2. Only students who show the right attitudes ans skills should be allowed to enroll in higher education
3. Govs must fund students, not universities
4. The should be a c

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 31/10/2008 16:10:36 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

mcdowella wrote:

Dear Madam,

Governments frequently have opinions about what courses students should study. As long as I can remember the UK has been trying to get people to train as engineers; this has recently broadened to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

I think that if the Government wishes to direct people's investment of their time (and therefore opportunity costs) in studies which may set the path of their future careers then the Government should pay for the cost of the courses they are pushing.

posted on 31/10/2008 16:05:24 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Random Commentator wrote:

Dear Madam,

Primary education is free and obligatory in all developed world. Arguments are obvious - it benefits the state to have educated people around (even if these individuals themselves reap most rewards). The same logic can be extended to higher education. Push people to get the highest education they can mentally achieve, benefits will be far bigger than cost.

I see no way, how theoretical arguments used to justify paid universities (individual to take care of own life etc) cannot be used to justify paid primary schools - where they are obviously false.

posted on 31/10/2008 15:53:29 pm

grigg wrote:

Dear Madam,

working people like myself, contribute the output of their time and efforts to society and in return they get a reward in terms of their remuneration which gives them buying power /access to goods and services that they need/want.

One of the reasons I wake up early every day and work as hard as I can until really late, thus contributing as much output to society as I can, is because I want to save up money that will allow me one day to buy a better education for my children which will in-turn help their prospects and buying power.

If however the state decides that it will not allow me to do so and is willing to give an equal opportunity for access to higher education (by forcefully taking a fraction of the reward for my output that I should be able to retain )to children of people that do not wish to make equal efforts to contribute to society through their work, to mine... then I have no incentive to actually contribute with any additional efforts myself.

This in turn means that I have no reason to try harder to make the world a better place, as it is irrelevant to my ability to acheive one of the major incentives I could be given to do so.

Therefore the economy is better off by allowing individuals to pay for their education.

posted on 31/10/2008 15:41:27 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Esko595 wrote:

Dear Madam,

I fully support Dr. Flodström. This is one of the key ideas of the Nordic welfare society. Its success as an educational and social model speaks for itself.

posted on 31/10/2008 15:24:40 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

CLaude Pruneau wrote:

Dear Madam,

Universities should recruit students on the basis of their intellectual capability, and their potential for success. The growing emphasis on money, and sky rocketing cost of education create a cast system where the wealthy are favored, and the poor or even the middle class are left behind. Having poor families (or students) borrow huge amounts of money to send their children to college is what is unfair. The long term cost to society of the proposition is astounding: more and more inequities, more and more frustrations, and increased crime + violence. I for one do not wish this society for myself or my kids.

C. P.
Professor of Physics
Wayne State University

posted on 31/10/2008 15:07:13 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

steeno wrote:

Dear Madam,

I disagree with you - Professor Anders Flodström obviously has the better argument. All citizens in a society benefit from an equal access for all to tertiary education. Society at large benefits from its ability to promote talent, whatever the background of any student.
My point is that countries following the European model can strive for t h e b e s t o f b o t h w o r l d s : 1)Tax-funded universities; 2) a model of governance by boards and the use of excellence-models to optimize focus on quality, cost-effectiveness and competition; 3) a systematic approach to accreditation, the use of learning outcomes and rankings etc. to demonstrate the level of quality delivered; 4) collaboration with business on research, and its funding, to increase research funding and the link between research and its business application.
Denmark i s pursuing the best of both worlds. It is implementing a remarkable 'policy of Globalization', which i.a. increases public funding of research to 1 % of GDP and has strengthened critical mass in our universities. Monetary incentives test the competitiveness of our higher education: Institutions of higher education can market and sell their educations outside Europe - and Danish students can take the public funding of their tuition abroad, financing their studies at say an American university for up to 2 years. In time, the other Nordic countries will certainly follow Denmark's lead.

The best American universities have unique qualities and are a source of inspiration; but they also express the accumulated resources of one country of 300 mio. people. Existing rankings need to be put into perspective: The performance of leading universities in any country should be compared with the performance of American universities with comparable funding and student/teacher-ratios.
As Professor Flodström states, questions of private tuition is directly linked to the tax regime of a given country. High investments in education, based on taxes, can create quality in the overall level of education in a society. Informed citizens with equal opportunities to excel, free in spirit and in their ability to make intelligent choices in their lives, are certainly an ideal for any true democracy. The Nordic countries and the Netherlands top nearly all ranking models. They thus challenge your basic propositions.

posted on 31/10/2008 14:45:01 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

rhjh10587 wrote:

Dear Madam,
As a current student, studying business I believe students will have to pay for university from now on, as the labour government has created a society where there is no other affordable option. I have no real issue with paying for University but I do have a huge issue with the amount of debt I am facing. The top-up fees are criminal! I am facing £21,000 debt, before interest which I accumulate from the moment I receive the money. So I already have 2years interest on a growing debt. I accept fees are now a factor of university. However the total price for one student alone who is working to fund herself and try to better herself should be supported by the government through reasonable fees. I do not see a return on the fees I pay within the university. Nothing within universities have changed since the top-up fees, so I ask are the fees being used for education and was the increase necessary?
And going to University is now a question of money and not education, or it is for every student and student family I know.
In an ideal world I would like to go to University for free but now we are paying no government will ever change it. But the price we have to pay can be changed and should be.

posted on 31/10/2008 13:58:04 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Derek Scott wrote:

Dear Madam,

Having voted no, I'm just puzzled how the current No majority is only 56-44, when the voting on each day so far has been 62-38, 61-39 and 61-39. Is the voting system robust?

Yours faithfully, Derek Scott

posted on 31/10/2008 13:31:03 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

D. Gouvias wrote:

Dear Madam,
I'm strongly against the proposition, ata least as far as tuition fees are concerned.

I'd like prof. Wolf to give me an idea on how the poor student, who are put off by the debt burden that they will have to endure for a great part of their (active) life, will survive in a system like the one she depicts? The examples of the US universities (especailly the 'top ones')is something that proves that those who (afford to) pay for their (higher or other) education can benefit from a 'better' training for the labour market, from a richer social capital and from a brighter working future! The universities themselves are better off when they earn money from a variety of sources and have discretion on how and who to charge for their 'services'. That's common sense. But is this the society we wish to live in? Happy middle- and upper-class graduates who earn 10 or 20 times more than the non-graduates (mostly the poorer and less educated co-citizens)?

She also referred to 'mediocracy', which prevails in many public (State?) schools (in the U.K. U.S.A. etc.). How does she define 'mediocracy'? Failing the (prefab and culturally-biased) tests that some bureaucrats construct? Test should be used, but only for identifying problems, remedying learning difficulties and avoiding exclusion, not maintaining and reproducing them!

Finally, what's all the fuss about taxation! If, as A. Wolf suggests, we're interested in promoting the best (the 'meritocratic argument') then she's right. But if we are not (and I'm certainly not!) interested in that, but instead we aim at a future society that is characterised by freedom, equality and solidarity, then she is not! After all, taxes shoud exist and should be socially fair and equitable, that is being applied in a incementally proportional way (the higher the income the higher the tax).

All the faults that A. Wolf found in the publicly-funded H.E. systems are the products of wider social inequalities (labour-market power-balance in the capitalist mode of production, business models, economic cycles, structural adjustments, poor planning of educational expansion, cultural and other types of discriminations etc.) and not deficiencies of a system of free H.Education.

posted on 31/10/2008 13:09:04 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Art Teacher wrote:

continued... (5,000 character limit...)

7. "And the history of government-funded institutions is that they are not only inefficient but timid and cowed." - I won't refute this and even referred to the US educational system as an example. But, wouldn't our time be better spent searching a solution to this, rather than destroying the entire system? The good still far outweighs the bad here.

8. Both Prof. Flodström and Prof. Wolf point to the "excellence" of America's elite colleges as a shining example of the greatest learning. These schools are good, but not as good as their reputations. That is to say, and this comes from speaking with graduates of Harvard and Yale, that the quality of education is about the same as anywhere else. What makes it seem better is that only the best and brightest can even attend. Yes, these schools are well endowed. Yes they have famous professors. But the secret to a good education lies in the student who works hard, and reads everything, and the real success of a school is based on how many students are willing to do this. Good professors and gobs of cash can only slightly enhance this core of work. This is also why private k-12 schools outshine the public ones in America - even when the costs are very low, as in Catholic schooling.

9. Prof. Flodström claims that the average American student will be less prepared for higher education while the prices of this education will climb higher, and ever farther out of reach, resulting in a "knowledge crisis". I believe this has already occured to some degree, but it's not clear to what extent this crisis will effect the US, and it would be interesting to see some facts on the subject. I believe the cost of college in the US in increasing about 6% a year? The current outsourcing of American jobs abroad is evidence of a knowledge gap, but where are the statistics this is increasing, and where are the statistics on lowering student enrollment (especially by income level)? This would be very telling information.

10. Prof. Flodström encourages a NCLB act for higher education without addressing it's many problems in K-12 schools. Could he pleasse go into more detail on this subject?

11. Prof. Flodström seems to invision the future to consist of a classless society, without explaining specifically what he means by this. Is Scandanavia truly classless or is he fooling himself? Does the head of a bank in Scandinavia earn as much as a street sweeper? Is a classless society truly what a country needs to have the best, most competitive economy? Should a government truly aim towards the creation of a classless society, whether through education or other means? I'm truly confused by this term and its implications.

12. Neither Prof. Flodström nor Prof. Wolf sufficiently discuss the problems that come with students leaving schools with massive amounts of debt, and the advantages this gives to employers. This needs to be addressed, as it's the core reason behind my belief that education should be free.

13. Neither Prof. Flodström nor Prof. Wolf discuss why American colleges are getting so expensive, while other schools in the world are not. Is it possible that demand is inflating the price beyond its real value (i.e. what graduates can expect to earn based on the education recieved)? Is this a scenario that any nation would wish to repeat?

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 31/10/2008 12:11:10 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Art Teacher wrote:

Dear Madam,

Prof Alison Wolf seems to have limited this debate to the UK. In that case the debate topic should also be limited to the UK...

1. If poor students are consistantly hurt by the current system, how will having to pay help them? Isn't that an additional hurdle?

2. Prof Alison Wolf sees the only result of public education financing as students gaining higher salaries. What about the work they do? These people are not merely collecting paychecks. What about the benefit to your economy (which isn't limited to their combined salaries)? What about the scientific research they do? In this light, is there anything more "important and pressing" than the funding of education?

3. Prof Alison Wolf seems to believe the value of higher eductation is the piece of paper at the end which gives you a leg-up in getting a job - and that this value is lessened when everyone has it. The real benefit is what students learn, which is beneficial to all, and should be available to all.

4. Prof. Alison Wolf says that students work harder when paying for their education. Could she please prove it with statistics? After all, the incentive of high grades, graduating with honors, and preparing for the future exists regardless of the bill. As for demanding more from teachers, that's a touchy situation as administration tends to lean towards professors over students, at least in my experience. The fear of academic probation and/or not getting a letter of recommendation outweighs and is independent of the pricetag of the school.

5. The differences between US public schools and colleges don't end with payment, nor is that the causal link. Students in US public schools are much younger, less mature, less motivated, have less of a sense of their future lives, have different interests, have a greater variation of abilities and disabilities, and are not selected among a pool of applicants. Plus, there are many more of them. Public schools are also hampered by competing academic interests of parents and a fear of lawsuits which hampers curriculum. This is an effect of being a state institution, granted, and needs to be addressed.

6. "There are some universities in the world which are fully, or almost fully, government-funded, and also independent in their views." Prof. Wolf has destroyed her argument before she's begun. Why not answer the real question - how did these exceptions come about?

posted on 31/10/2008 12:07:57 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

tkroy wrote:

Dear Madam,
I am arguing against the motion by putting forward the following point:.

1.To pay for higher education is tantamount to commercialisation of higher education. It is a direct assault that we see daily that somebody's talent is measured by the yardstick "Mr X is getting 1 million dollar starting salary" . Instead, it should have been "Mr X is contributing to knowledge for the progress of the society". This comercialisation is by proft making organisation for taking forward further profit for individual only, is totally wrong and depriving the society..

2. If state pays the amount for individual's higher education then it goes as investment in the state and can produce better citizen otherwise money-spinning mentality bound to develop which is causing loss to the country as well as to the world. Nobody would feel stake in the state or in the world (thus losing loyalty for the state or the world) which is being witnessed by everybody in the prevailing global financial meltdown.

3. Mostly, it has been observed that individuals are not able to pay for higher education due to low income of their parents or not able to sustain due to poverty - so state should pay for the higher education cost. Quality education can be imparted if commercial motive is not there. This would be possible if state comes forward as it is alreay continuing for long past in many parts of the world.

posted on 31/10/2008 11:43:12 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Olympiad wrote:

I think that we certainly should pay for that. Because the university or institute should not only rely on the government fund. Like recently we suffer the financial crisis,the government have no more fund to support the university ,but the research of the university should not be stagnating.

posted on 31/10/2008 11:23:42 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

J. Hall wrote:

Dear Madam,

If all universities did was educate I might agree, but the modern day university does much more than that.

They have grown beyond being institutes of higher learning and have become "think tanks" &innovation centers that benefit the masses. The fundamental research performed at the university level is a benefit to mankind and as a result necessitates the support of all mankind.

posted on 31/10/2008 10:56:31 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Potential_to_learn_over_potential_to_pay wrote:

Dear Madam,
For me it seems rather straight forward. Bright minds should count more than wealthy parents in obtaining a university education. New ideas create wealth which increases tax revenues for the government.

Let's give the brightest an opportunity to grow rather than exclude the poor, financially cripple the middle class and let the wealthy simply buy their way into higher education.

Education benefits all. Let's invest in long term academic potential rather than prostitute learning to the highest bidder.

posted on 31/10/2008 10:28:03 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

pacific nz wrote:

Dear Madam,

Most participants to this debate seem to assume that the individual is the primary beneficiary of any higher income that results from higher income. This is not necessarily the case. Here in New Zealand, the top tax rate is 39%, plus GST of 12.5%, plus local government taxes, plus state subsidies forgone with higher income, plus (not least) the tax on any extra beer I might choose to buy with my extra income, and so on. In sum, the state pockets over half of any extra income an individual might derive from higher education.

Thus, it would seem that from a purely user pa

素年锦时UID: 2610749

Lord Of Logic wrote:

Dear Madam,

A couple of things strike me here. First the Prof Wolf doesn’t consider the extremes. If only those that can afford to go to college go, why not apply the logic down to kindergarten? If being able to pay is a filtering quality for achieving a good, why waste public money at all? That seems silly to me. Lots of good students don’t make it through our unjust and unfair public system, but without public funding and government involvement, many more would not rise to college levels. We have vocational schools that allow our students to leave as auto mechanics, beauticians, and electricians. Why not let some of them leave as doctors, engineers, lawyers, or heck even

In Ohio a Supreme Court ruling declaring how we fund our schools “unconstitutional” has been ignored for 8 years. We use property tax. Since wealthier families live in wealthier districts, they have better funded schools with lower student to teacher ratio. This makes for a more productive environment. Thus the, “rich get richer and poor get poorer” situation exist.

Prof. Wolf also seems to think the interdiction of publicly funded higher education will come in absence of private universities. There will always be a free market option for those who choose it.

posted on 31/10/2008 05:36:18 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Sara N. wrote:

Dear Madam,

Education is a sharp tool wielded best by those who desire enough to attain it.

Free handouts are not the answer. I do believe education is a necessary instrument for our society and economies to progress, but higher education should indeed be left to those who value it. When I went to university, I soon realized all the resources around me being wasted by those on federal aid and grants. Most were over covered and spent the extra money frivolously. There are the select few who use these options wisely, of course, but it is more widely abused. Scholarship programs, parental/family investments and loans are an excellent way to ensure the higher educational resources of our countries are not being wasted on those who do not most value their what they are being given. We put money into the system to support these institutions and ensure their future, why should we also pick up the tab for those wishing to use the resources we make available to them? I would rather see my money spent on better lower education tools. Those schools teach much more relevant tools for succeeding in the real world. I would be happy to see my tax dollars spent on those getting a lower education!

The middle class will not be priced out of college. It is all a matter of priorities and savings. There is a lot of free money out there just waiting...not to mention, working and going to school. Or working, saving and then going to school. If they don't think it's worth the sacrifice to get there, they simply should not be using the resources because chances are they will not benefit from it, nor will society.

posted on 31/10/2008 04:51:42 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Justinian Maximus wrote:

Dear Madam,
Governments would have to garantee higher education for all. As many people know, university fees are very expensive and middle-class students can't afford them. In my opinion, we must reduce the cost of education.

posted on 31/10/2008 03:06:58 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Armchair Economist1229817425239 wrote:

Dear Madam,

In terms of academic, having individual paying for higher education is a fair way to go. However, when you have higher education tuition costing above the affordibility of middle class, then individual paying will limit to the very weathly only. Education is a great equalizer, and is the only way for people who are poor to advance. It is the responsibility for the state to provide aid to students in need.

posted on 31/10/2008 02:59:18 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Justinian Maximus wrote:

Dear Madam,
Spreading education is a noble objective of governments. By the way, middle-class students can't afford higher education and I think governments would reduce the cost of university fees.

posted on 31/10/2008 02:54:08 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Nicolas1229817395770 wrote:

Dear Madam,

I am against the idea of starting in life laden with debts incurred because of higher education. Not having a salary already makes a difference with others that take on a job early in life. Also, start charging for it and it will become a financial product - you buy it to get more salary later, whether or not you use it in your future job.
The reform has to be made in the things that are taught to children. No need to learn about 100 battles, for instance, but instead learn how war is destructive and give a few chosen examples that will convince everyone. That gives you time to learn what is really need in the work sector today.

posted on 31/10/2008 02:46:16 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

James1229817372566 wrote:

Dear Madam,
I would have to Disagree. While students should pay some fees there should also be some state subsidy and scholarships and bursaries should be available to help those with low income.

posted on 31/10/2008 02:30:27 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

chrysanthos wrote:

Dear Madam,

Benjamin Franklin illustrated that "an investment in knowledge pays the best interest ". There is not doubt about it. Now,the cornerstone is who is going to bear the cost? If we aproach this issue from an individualistic point of view we are more likely to face education as ivestement. In other words since the individual will recruit his ivestment then he has to bear the cost.( Remember Mincer who called the educated and skilled workers as capitalists ). On the other hand if you aproach the human capital investments as a process which is going to benefit the society as a whole then society ( or state ) has the obligation to contribute. Just consider what is going to happen in a situation were is credit constraint- maybe a lack of educated people? My conclusing point is that both individuals and state have to bear the cost of education.

posted on 31/10/2008 02:20:59 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Brain & Brawn wrote:

Dear Madam,
Although I tend to agree with the house that education is indeed more of a private than a public good, I support some form of government subsidy, possibly based on family income levels. While one may idolize private educational institutions in the US, one should not forget that many state sponsored universities are also great centres of learning and research. So the idea that state-fuding leads to mediocre results is unsound. Furthermore, student debt is an extremely serious issue in the US, with the government ruminating over more generous debt-forgiveness programs. A little research will show that the average new graduate pays a considerable portion of his income towards student loans. Also, many reasonably debt averse individuals are unable to pursue areas of interest that dont have a significant payoff, but the same price tag as degrees in a more commerically attractive field.

posted on 31/10/2008 01:55:38 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Justinian Maximus wrote:

Dear Madam,
As maqny people know, students have to pay for their own university fees. Anyway, we must consider the possibility that most of them can't afford to pay high fees. I think higher education is very expensive and I agree with the opposition and vote con.

posted on 31/10/2008 01:54:18 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Laci wrote:

Dear Madam,
I agree with prof. Wolf.

posted on 31/10/2008 01:47:21 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

asdfgx wrote:

Dear Madam,

If I'd had to pay for my own university fees, I never would have been able to take the degree. So I agree with the opposition and vote con.

posted on 31/10/2008 01:27:30 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

nasochkas wrote:

Dear Madam,

I believe there should be a balance between subsidized education and individual payment. As noted by Professor Wolf, having an individual pay at least something for their education makes them value it more. Furthermore, many of the returns from higher education accrue to the individual with the degree.

At the same time, having an educated workforce creates positive externalities for society as a whole and allows it to reach higher levels of growth and investment.

Furthermore, many societies would like to encourage social mobility. While having a degree certainly places a person up the income ladder, crippling student loans hinder social mobility. A person with 50K in student loans will still probably better off than someone with no degree, but they will have a hard time catching up to someone whose family could afford to pay 200K for a 4 year American university. Every month I send at least 300 dollars to my student loans, which I expect to be paying for decades to come. That is money that will not be put towards a home, or a business or consumption.

A correct balance would require students to pay according their ability. In America however, "paying according to ability" has turned into borrowing the equivalent of a small mortgage.

posted on 31/10/2008 01:26:29 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

nah-cool wrote:

Dear Madam,
Its nice to approach this from a purely ideological or academic stand point, unfortunately that means entirely divorcing yourself from reality. Any in favor of the argument is either too wealthy to see how a hundred thousand dollars worth of debt way be a crippling burden to a 20 something student, or doesn't really mind that our educational standards (by availability mind you) is subpar with the rest of the developed world. Sure we can see how the free market shuffles (while sallie mae and other lenders make a killing,) but doing so may cost the US its leadership in innovation. If anything it should be one of governments highest priorities to ensure that future generations receive the investment to spur growth, its in everyones best interest. Anyone who thinks 9% interest is fair for a student loan needs to put down the books and face the reality facing the world economy today

posted on 31/10/2008 01:21:36 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

fawzielfranji wrote:

Dear Madam,
yes i agree,individuals should pay for their higher education.

posted on 31/10/2008 01:16:34 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Scott, Monterey CA wrote:

Dear Madam,

American university education is subsidized through student loan programs which we know leads to rising costs of university tuition in both public and private universities making education "unaffordable".

If individuals were solely responsible for the expense of their education, the market would provide affordable education, as students would become responsible consumers of education, most likely foregoing the expensive "college experience" in favor of a more utilitarian education.

American universities (and the complement industries - college board, textbooks, etc.) are a large black hole for American tax dollars.

I believe that meritorious scholarships, public and private, in a non-subsidized environment, are a superior alternative to student loan schemes.

posted on 31/10/2008 00:54:47 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

poorprole wrote:

Dear Madam, the proposition is flawed because it implies that graduates should pay for all their higher education. There are clearly some benefits for the individual,mitigated by the wages forgone while studying, but also benefits for the state. These are extensive and include improved skill supply, reduced training costs for the public sector especially the NHS, reduced unemployment, less crime, more volunteering from graduates, and generally more responsible civic behaviour from graduates.
In England the undergraduate contributes to tuition fees already, and combined with living costs the net result is many finish with significant debt. This is not good for them or the economy, and will tend to decrease the propensity to enter higher education, especially for potential students from debt averse working class families, so in social terms the proposition is regressive.

posted on 30/10/2008 22:27:19 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

K Elzubeir wrote:

Dear Madam,
I believe the society, as a whole, does have the responsibilty to offer free or subsidized university education to its youth. This way you guarantee an equal opportunity access to higher education for students coming from rich and poor families

posted on 30/10/2008 21:12:12 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

S. Orr wrote:

Dear Madam,

After reading a few comments, I understand there is a confusion among readers. Supporting high education financially has nothing to do with state control (this is another issue which definitely should be addressed through regulations, checks and balances, etc.), and has nothing to do with welfare! On the contrary, by having a sufficient number of applicants, there must be a filtering process, through which, only the best students are accepted to the best universities (a healthy competition), while the less advanced could still pursue studies and possibly find what they are best at (or what is most interesting and rewarding for them) and advance themselves to the highest levels. At any level, these students will advance the country in a significant way - not just get a "free ride".
In any way you look at it, there is no substitute for continual education, on all levels, for any country that wants to have a future.

Thanks,

Shlomo Orr.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 30/10/2008 20:57:29 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

middleclass wrote:

Dear Madam,
Money is not the main motivation factor in learning. There are many scientific proofs that intrinsically motivation (enthusiasm) is the most important factor. It is very questionable that people who pay for higher education are more motivated than others. I’ve not seen a scientific proof to support it. On the contrary I am living in a country which has public universities with very low fees and private universities with high fees and I see many motivated low – middle income class students in public universities and unmotivated rich students in private universities. Higher education affects these students’ future (especially low and middle income class students). Sometimes higher education is their only opportunity to have good life. They have to study for their future either they pay for it or not. Therefore free higher education can not be regarded as ‘free good’ like in classic economic theories.

Higher education does not only mean learning and sharing knowledge. It means also getting a ‘degree’. This ‘degree’ gives you social benefits and better career opportunities. Therefore academic degrees create their own elite class. For ex: Profs, Engineers, Harward Uni graduates etc. If education become too expensive to be paid by low and middle class citizens, then these people will not be able to get ‘degrees’ and higher education will create their own elite social class for rich people who are able to pay for higher education. When you look European history, you can easly see these academic classes and their negative affects on society, science and countries development.

posted on 30/10/2008 20:55:15 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

ramirothehero wrote:

Dear Madam,
Most states sponsor elementary and high school education. Why then shall it be so different to sponsor college education? I believe the moral hazard of over-consumption of education is surely much less than the moral hazard of under-consumption: After all, knowledge is not as perishable as other capital goods and services. The more is always better. Let’s take for example medicine; having more doctors lowers the cost of health care, more engineers and architects permit constructions costs to come down, more Phds in philosophy lowers the cost for both private and public learning institutions. The issue at hand is the marginal cost higher education, and its profitability, and thus who should pick up the tab. I’m under the idea that public education can give economies of scale that lower the marginal cost at a level that the society is much better off; the alternative, each pupils funds its own, transfers unnecessarily a factor price uncertainty whose means don’t justify the end.

posted on 30/10/2008 20:45:27 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

S. Orr wrote:

Dear Madam,

According to Alison Wolf, "Individuals should certainly pay for their higher education. Anything else is deeply unfair to their fellow citizens."
On the contrary! Not to fund education (including high-education) is unfair to the taxpayers who pay their taxes exactly for this type of purpose and values!
Wolf's approach is short-sighted in that (a) it does not see the whole picture and implications, and (b) it views the citizens as selfish individuals who cannot see beyond their immediate needs. It is this kind of an approach that causes nations to fall.

Sincerely,

Shlomo Orr.

posted on 30/10/2008 20:42:23 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

S. Orr wrote:

Dear Madam,

Sorry, my previous comment was sent unfinished.
In addition to the big economic advantage mentioned in the first half of my comment:
Perhaps most importantly, as a taxpayer, I expect the government to take care of the health of the people, their security, pension & care when they are old, infrastructure, and education, including higher education (!) - just like a head of a family takes care of his/her family. Anything less is unacceptable and unfair to the taxpayers!

Thanks.

Shlomo Orr.

posted on 30/10/2008 20:33:04 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

S. Orr wrote:

Dear Madam,

I totally agree with Anders Flodström - (a) education (high and low) is part of the infrastructure of any country. Moreover, (b) it does generate growth for the country, in the long term; (c) it attracts brains from foreign countries, which enriches the sciences and arts and contributes to huge steps forward in technology and otherwise - so this is the best investment any country can make! As to the taxpayers

posted on 30/10/2008 20:27:09 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Pierce wrote:

Dear Madam,

I agree with Prof. Wolf. Allowing the state to pay for higher education will undoubtedly lead to more state control over higher education. The state will sooner or later dictate how institutions are run, who the institutions' leaders are, what is taught, etc.

Perhaps the state's role should be limited to ensuring that all who wish to attend universities have the means to do so via fair loan programs. The state naturally expands to assume more and more power. Academic freedom, intellectual diversity, and many other good things depend on keeping the state as far removed from higher education as possible.

Pierce

posted on 30/10/2008 19:42:45 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

MASSIMO METERANGELO wrote:

Dear Madam,
I am strongly convinced of the fairness of the welfare state: and the higher education has to be part of the welfare, being one of the pillars of our society. For the State the graduates represent an investment for a better future, and the payment of the higher education by the state has to be seen as an investment for the whole society.

posted on 30/10/2008 17:55:09 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Rednael wrote:

Dear Madam,

Things are always more appreciated when acquired by the end user with her\his own personal resources. The current housing crises shows the example of people who paid any down-payment on a home are more likely to stay in the home and not walk away at near the rate of those who have a lower financial investment in the property. When we pay for anything ourselves we are investing our personal blood, sweat, and tears. Such investment makes things gained this way precious.

posted on 30/10/2008 17:07:31 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Ulrich123 wrote:

Dear Madam,
Professor Anders Flodström should be asked on his views on other countries such as France, which also have generous state funding for students, yet produce many students with no useful skills. Other nations also have a problem of paying for student fees only to have the students immigrate to earn more money somewhere else, hardly fair to a taxpayer.

So the question should also be for which fields should funding be made available ? Clearly offering funding to students getting degrees in post modern philosophy will not help the economy and would be a bad investment.

posted on 30/10/2008 16:34:34 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Tanja wrote:

Dear Madam,
Higher education for everyone, paid by tax payers, is a bad news.
It produces only confusion and people start taking things for granted, and it takes us nowhere.
I lived in a system where education was accessible to everyone for twenty/thirty years, and the final outcome was a mass. Even those who studied Shakespeare ended up at each others throats. Being educated does not necessarily mean better nation and more prosperous country.
On the contrary, it means better chances for individuals to find holes in a system, make profit and manipulate.
The world made progress with the help of individuals and their hard work. No matter whether they came from middle class or poor families, they found their way to get where they wanted and do what they aspired.
If a state still wants to give support to some promising young people, certain rules should be elaborated, or forms of competition. That would be the motivation and inspiration for them. Those from middle class families come and pay, no harm there. But they compete with the 'states' students.
Primary and secondary education should be compulsory and paid by taxpayers. In my opinion, of course.

Tanja, from Serbia

posted on 30/10/2008 16:17:59 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Rama wrote:

Dear Madam,
In today's competitive world beset by complex uncertainties, costly higher education, whether in one's own country or abroad, cannot be paid for by the tax payer. In the interest of extending the fruits of higher education to all, S/he can be made to bear some part of it by treating it as a loan to be repaid over time by the State, of course with interest, with the State recovering the amount from the individual. For this it is essential that the State have the beneficiary furnish a bond underwritten by the university/employer as a promissory note, much like today's corporations do with their workers.

posted on 30/10/2008 15:35:48 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Ezekiel wrote:

Dear Madam,

At least we should first know if "HIGHER EDUCATION" is a public good. In my opinion, it is somewhat a Private Good (I know it's silly to hear, but I'll try my very best to elaborate on this matter). Two characteristics define a Private Good. First, it is rivalrous. Studies show that when the teacher-student ratio is large, there will be a tendency of lower learning, or low quality of learning. At least here in the Philippines, that's what's happening. Public schools are overpopulated, and the quality of education is at risk. Yes, it's the responsibility of the government to educate people, but primary education is enough. In the higher education, this will determine your capabilities regarding the job you want after you graduate. If you want to have a good future, then go to a better university. But here in the Philippines, a better university means also that the tuition fee is somewhat high. So, we can see that money is one of the factors for a good education.

Second, higher education is excludable. Of course, you can't appreciate higher education if you are not going to pay (unless someone is going to pay for you). And, even if you paid, you can't fully appreciate education if you are not going to buy the requirements per subject (projects, books, etc.). In short, you are going to fail if you don't have money. So, I believe that higher education is not anymore a public and common good, but it is a private good. And I believe that individuals should pay for their higher education, not the government.

Also, if the government will pay alone the higher education of its citizens, that also means that we are going to eliminate private schools, because by nature, private schools have different tuition fees, different from the public schools, and it would be unfair if the government will pay tuition fees to some students higher than the majority. This also violates the concept of capitalism.

Next, I'm not disclosing my argument for subsidies that the government wants to give. I'm just not in favor in the scenario that the government will pay ALL of the tuition fees of the citizens.

PEACE!

posted on 30/10/2008 15:15:06 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

SLNSC wrote:

Dear Madam,
If the debate tries to find a solution in respect of providing funds for ever increasing number of aspirants seeking higher education then it is unfortunately ill founded. Education whether it be basic or higher education shall be voluntarily and profusely provided to deserving students. Merit and eligibility shall be the criteria than the size of purse of the students or their sponsors.
When we know that to create wealth you need knowledge you can not offer a reverse swing to say that you should possess wealth to acquire knowledge.
When the individuals pay for their higher education out of their own means or borrowed there is a pressure on them to perform and take back multiples of what they invested. The focus would be on return on investment that has been seen as detrimental to the society at times.
When someone learns out of gratis and support provided by the State a sense of gratitude develops allowing the students to choose activities and career that would further the goals of the society.
I am also skeptical whether real value based higher education can be imparted when the money is demanded to be put on the table. Ultimately such decisions would determine and provide signals for the shaping up of future societies in the world.

posted on 30/10/2008 15:11:49 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

tiedemies wrote:

Dear Madam,
I believe the question, when put in such a straightforward way, is a bit misleading. I do believe that individuals should pay for some of their higher education. On the other hand, to me it seems clear that there are various fields of study that exhibit such a high level of positive externalities and for which the market provides little compensation, that this merits some level of public funding.

Also, there is reason to believe that there will always be a lot of people who would benefit greatly from the opportunity to receive education but who lack either the money or willingness to bear the risks of having an education. The market and voluntary private charity will be able to compensate for lot of these shortcomings but not all.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 30/10/2008 13:20:13 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

No one wrote:

Dear Madam,

I am surprised to see Dr. Wolf claiming that students in the United States pay for their education. Most universities in the United States have at 3 tiers of tuition- local student, out-of-state, and foreign student. This suggests that education in the US is subsidized.

Also, in many cases, government grants or endowments are used to offset the cost of university operations.

Dr. Wolf also claims that some of the best scientists and students are found in American universities. By implication, American universities produce the best graduands. I would suggest that the implication is not necessarily true. In many cases, "the best scientists" teach fewer (or no) courses than their colleagues so they can focus on their research. The best students graduate and get good jobs, not so much because the university educates them, but because they are naturally brilliant and pick things up despite their bad education.

How valuable can a university education be, when the average university professor has received minimal training in instructional pedagogy? How valuable can a university education be, when in the best universities, the deciding factor in promotion and tenure is not in classroom/ pedagogical effectiveness, but in research production?

In short, I would argue that the question of whether students should pay for a university education is the wrong question, because there is minimal education going on in the leading universities. The real question is whether students should pay for a piece of paper that says, "I am a person with traits desirable to the workforce- hire me!"

posted on 30/10/2008 11:50:55 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Aditi S Ray wrote:

Dear Madam,


To my mind we would need to ask ourselves, is higher education really a ‘public’ good, despite some likely positive externalities of having highly educated citizens? There are certain roles ascribed to Governments, cutting across political ideology, that of providing law and order and basic public goods which touch the lives of all citizens (both physical infrastructure e.g. public roads or drinking water, and social infrastructure e.g. primary health care, or primary education). I consider primary education as a public good , because a welfare Government needs to ensure that because of ignorance of the written word and rudimentary calculation skills, large sections of citizens do not get exploited in adult life. But anything more funded by the Government would be the ‘extra cheese’ topping on the basic pizza.

While a Government spending additionally for “basic skill development” for employability can still be termed as a ‘public good’, for the simple reason that a larger number of public who are at the lower economic strata are likely to be positively affected by such spending, a Government spending for higher education does not make the grade similarly, in my opinion. Higher education increases the higher income earning potential of the ambitious individuals, but is not a ‘necessary condition’ for their ‘basic sustenance’, for which alone, I think, any welfare Government should be responsible.

Equity and efficiency are competing principles, and a welfare society does not mind if the Government consciously spends tax payer’s money to bring up the under-privileged through targeted financial handholding. A meritorious but poor student deserves such handholding through State sponsored scholarship, special coaching etc to enable him to gain entry in institutes of higher learning, but for funding the actual higher education, education loan is the answer. This ensures that only those, cutting across the socio-economic strata they belong to, who have the confidence in themselves, and value the higher education, will opt for it.

posted on 30/10/2008 11:12:24 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

kencharman wrote:

Dear Madam

In Europe we only struggle with this kind of question because we are so precious about the state's role in creating the utopian dream of a "fair and equal society".

So long as everyone has access to state funding that draws against future income, then higher education should be paid for by the private individual. That is still a subsidy.

But if we do this we should take much more interest in what we get. This debate needs to confront the question of utility. Can "advanced" economies really regnerate and maintain their status if they continue to tilt towards the arts and social science? Shouldn't the state be doing more to encourage young talent towards engineering, technology, life sciences - or do we really believe we can build sustainable economies on the service and media sectors?

If the state is to continue (part) funding universities it should use incentivise and price to get the graduates we need.

Ken Charman
Senior Research Fellow
King's College London

posted on 30/10/2008 10:56:26 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

JustujuMedia wrote:

Dear Madam, Salaam.

Education ensures that a person would know how the world works, and get a chance to make changes for better. If a person cannot afford an educational expense, according his / her aptitude, and natural abilities, the chances are that the human progress and advancements would suffer. How many geniuses this world has lost so far due to the cost of education is any body's guess! Where individuals are required to pay, the outstanding poor must be identified and provided complete support.

posted on 30/10/2008 10:01:02 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Chatterbox wrote:

Dear Madam,

Many of the most articulate and generous community-builders in our time come from the ranks of those without a day of college.

Higher education most certainly has its place, but it is no sine-qua-non of an exemplary contribution to society. Even compared strictly by economic outcomes there is no evidence, ceteris paribus, that college graduates earn more over their lifetimes than their less schooled age-mates. All the studies suggesting otherwise fail to control for the significant differences in financial standing and educational enrichment during the early years.

Inasmuch as I vote to leave higher education to the marketplace, primary and secondary education--from as early as 3 to 18 or more years of life--must be carefully, broadly, and equitably financed by the public purse. This schooling is certainly money well spent for the benefit of society.

posted on 30/10/2008 08:32:23 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Steve wrote:

Dear Madam,
I am a current undergraduate student. If the benefit of higher graduation is greater than the cost, then should we not make tuition free for anyone who wants to take any degree from bachelor's to doctorate degree? Should we also give tuition free to second, third, fourth degree? Won't degrees become nothing but worthless titles? Then if tuition is 'free' then universities are free to increase tuition every year. What we learn from high school is "there is no such thing as free lunch."

posted on 30/10/2008 08:25:01 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

RichardC wrote:

Dear Madam,

The proposition as stated sounds too stark. As I first read it, I could imagine a person like myself being denied the graduate education I received through the generosity of the institution. But Professor Wolf's discussion makes clear that she means the proposition to include ways for poor students to have access to the education their talents warrant. With that proviso, I agree.

While I do have some sympathy with Professor Flodström's view that higher education is part of the national infrastructure, I find some of his other points less convincing -- especially his view that the American arrangement produces too few excellent students. Educators at some of America's most distinguished universities have decried the emphasis on the top names and affirmed that an excellent education can be obtained at hundreds, if not thousands, of schools.

Thank you.

posted on 30/10/2008 07:01:53 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

zp19871014 wrote:

Dear Madam,
I voted against the proposition because I'm suffering from paying tuition fees now. Alough the government shares a part of my tuition, my university gives me a scholarship but I still have difficulties in affording it. My family is not rich, but that's not my fault(not anyone's fault). Actually, I don't really care the theories or reasons you give to defend the proposition. I just know I want to receive higher education which I cannot afford to. I hope the government or social found can do more things than they already have done.

posted on 30/10/2008 07:00:46 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

mikek23 wrote:

Dear Madam,
Would those debating the motion consider an Australian style model whereby the state pays for the tuition and then must be repayed by the former student when they earn in excess of certain income at virtually zero percent interest?

posted on 30/10/2008 07:00:34 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

snedeker wrote:

Dear Madam,

Every individual should have the opportunity to attend an institution of higher learning. Once the individual is given that opportunity, it is up to them to make the most of it.

Should the state pay for higher education? Yes. I believe there are too many people who could not attend otherwise. However, I believe that state funding should primarily be in the form of loans so that the state can recover the investment. Grants should be provided only in extreme circumstances and based on prior performance and need. In the end, the state benefits by a more educated and skilled populace.

posted on 30/10/2008 06:55:13 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Theresa wrote:

Dear Madam,
If the state pays for the individual the individual should pay back once they start earning to help other individuals in need. It would be a waste if the state pays for an individual and the individual decides to migrate to another country and work there. This way the State is losing hard earned tax payers money.

posted on 30/10/2008 06:52:35 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

1430a wrote:

Dear Madam,
The motion of the debate is:This house believes that individuals, not the state, should pay for higher education.And I am speaking against it.
First of all,as we all know education is divided into various sectors and the sector we are talking about is 'Tertiary'Education.Tertiary education is one of the important sectors of education and any country which wants to develop or is developing needs to provide at least tertiary education to maximum people of the population.
Lets talk about the 'Third World Countries',and how many people in the these part of the world can afford to get higher education?These people are usually aren't capable of a days meal,talking about higher education is far off.Hence if the state doesn't provide the funds for these people how can they complete their higher education.Also the fact that the cost of living is so high and most people forget education and start working at an early age to support their family.Another factor that is important is the gender inequality in this part of the world.Here the parents are too poor to support both their children(son and daughter).Hence they always educate sons at an expense of Daughters which means women usually remain uneducated and gender inequality exists.

Thank you

posted on 30/10/2008 06:49:20 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

keem wrote:

Firstly I think I have to say I am a korean beause it's more sensitive issue in our country.
I am not really critisizing paying for higher education but it should be on the condition that they want as well as are eager to learn. it's my personal point of view based on korean educational system. It doesn't have to be pressured from their parents.
We need to consider side effects as it is currently happening in S. korea. Even if there are thousands and millions of people who are graduating or graduated from university they are still looking for a job, which means employment market that provides people with high salary or high social position can't afford to accept all of them, exactly what they are looking for. it's pretty stuffed
Another thing is they tend to set up their eyesight too high when it comes to getting a job because they don't want to work for peanuts and want to take higher responsibility.
Then, the end result is so tragic, unemployment rate is getting high that is not only from the financial crisis of W. street but social trend especially young generation.
it's something like chronic disease in the employee market of this country, which is called academic inflation. getting a university degree has become essential since not too long ago and I dout that they who paid for higher education to get a university ,master's degree or somthing would be able to help them perform well plus contribute our society??? I think experiences is more recommended rather than academic degree.

posted on 30/10/2008 06:12:14 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

jlevine5 wrote:

Dear Madam,

The issue central to the proposition is whether individual A should be coerced through the tax system to pay for the education of individual B and implicates the relationship of the individual to the state and what is legitimate state action. In a civilized society, which respects each person as an end onto themselves and not as a means to someone else's ends, the answer is clear.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 30/10/2008 06:02:59 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

feline74 wrote:

Dear Madam,
I have not voted for the simple reason I think the proposition is overly simplified.
It is correct that some courses of study (religion, the arts) are harmed by governmental over-involvement or none of any government's concern.
But it is also correct that there are a number of courses of study leading to professions a government depends on in-science, technology, business, medicine, law, the military, teaching- and would do well to encourage in both quantity and quality of graduates.
Thank you.

posted on 30/10/2008 05:20:16 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

mitaus wrote:

Dear Madam,

The notion that higher education is an individual choice is a necessary, but insufficient, contingency for accepting the payment of it by individuals.

Access to higher education is clearly uneven in countries it is privatised. Australia once struck a good balance with the mandatory payment of a modest loan for all students, but this system is currently being rejected in favour of a US-style model as federal funding decreases.

The greatest proponent of this change has been Melbourne University, which was once Australia's premier centre of higher education and is now a revolving door for affluent students of middling capability. Keep an eye on this institution as a real life experiment....

posted on 30/10/2008 05:10:46 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Juan_David_Reyes wrote:

Dear Madam,
It's just a positive externality, if a selected group of individuals take the advantage of higher education the society as an entire unity is benefitted.

posted on 30/10/2008 04:49:39 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Dianoia wrote:

Dear Madam,
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, let's all pay also for secondary education, primary education and - why not? - health care.
Back to the good old Victorian times!
George

posted on 30/10/2008 04:30:46 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

David A. Newman wrote:

Dear Madam,

Individual funding for education is warranted but so too is state assistance. Those who can pay should. Those who cannot pay but are highly intelligent should be mostly funded by the State (initially). That is the only mechanism of dynamic changes in class levels where the rich may fall and the poor may rise. Thus, remove the economic barriers to entry to socio-economic mobility.

Human capital is important and thus, the funding I describe above. I also believe in performance accountability. If the poor are given a funding chance, and they capitulate as I expect them to with high academic performance, then they should be rewarded with scholarships and weaned off state assistance. If not, then the state funding should be repayable loans to a maximum relative to income such that a portion is forgivable.

Thus, I propose a public-private partnership rather than one or the other extremes. Life is a mix, so too should be education funding.

posted on 30/10/2008 04:21:04 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Western Wonder wrote:

Dear Madam,
The concept that higher education benefits only the recipient of that education is fatally flawed in that it ignores the need for highly educated populations in the modern economy. Higher education benefits society even more that any possible (and sometimes questionable) individual economic benefit it confers. Societies will advance if higher education is funded totally by the society as a whole and made easily accessible to all regardless of family economic status. The objective is to have all members of society educated to the highest level they can attain bases solely on individual intellectual limitations.

posted on 30/10/2008 03:47:11 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Astrofanatic wrote:

Individuals should pay of their higher education as higher education is not like high school. Higher education is "choice entered" by indivuduals, I see not point that others have to help pay for their education. It would come as a burdan on those who already have economical problems. Also, at that age, students should learn how to pay for his/her own doings which in this case is enrolling is a university. Therefore for the community/nation to pay for them is really depriving them of the chance to learn. This might result in less working experiances in the future.

posted on 30/10/2008 03:23:04 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Nathan W wrote:

Dear Madam,

I think that Professor Wolf is missing out on a basic analytical tool in economics. In contradiction to the simplistic assumptions that are sometimes made in economic analyses, there are ALWAYS externalities in market activities. That is, that some market activities place costs on individuals who had nothing to do with the initial transaction, while other market activities carry beneficial effects towards people who had nothing to do with the initial transaction.

In this case, an individual's education tends to bring significant benefits, through concentration of human capital, to the communities and states that the individuals work in. Since the individual can't internalize all these benefits, the market will ALWAYS under allocate educational expenditures.

Since states are able to internalize many of these benefits, a smart state fixes this positive externality by investing in education. It then reaps the rewards through increased future tax revenues and increased productivity among companies who can take advantage of a greater pool of knowledge.

It is true, as I discuss here that the increasing ability of labour to move across borders brings an increasing challenge for states who wish to move towards an optimal level of education within their borders. The real question, then, is how states will react to increasing labour mobility when considering strategies to improve their competitiveness in the global economy.

That, all in the context of improving economic outcomes for individuals as well as society. State provisions for higher education can be easily defended without a word about social justice.

However, pretending that there are only economic gains is a false argument. Economic efficiency is not our raison d'être. The field of economics should not allow itself to become morally bankrupted by such simplistic arguments. It is an inherent good that students with little means have access to greater potential, through state provisions for higher learning. Businesses can higher more educated people, while citizens enter the job market with (generally) greater productivity. Of course, this 'Pareto improvement' is not a free lunch for everyone. I owe many tens of thousands, and the public purse both subsidizes school fees across the board and pays the interest on those who take public loans until they finish school. This means that I can focus on gaining practical experience and improving my analytical skills and tools that will surely allow me to pay hundreds of thousands more in taxes than I would have otherwise.

As for completely free university or graduate school? I agree that it may go too far. However, there is clearly a role for the state in supporting higher education.

posted on 30/10/2008 03:03:02 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Roger wrote:

Dear Madam,

I am in my last year at a top University studying PPE with Mandarin and I can tell you it is a complete mess. We have a whole first year which is designed for students to 'settle in' to University. While I do enjoy going to the pub and playing sports the reason I am at University is to challenge myself and improve.

Second and third years are slightly more challenging but even then hardly stretch the . We are limited to doing 6 modules a year - according to the budget we are each allocated. Which gives me only 8 hours of lectures a week.

I am paying at least 200 pounds a week and I will graduate with 12,000 pounds debt. While I am, luckily, not in a position to worry too much about money I cant help feel I would be in a much better position if my degree was condensed to 1.5 or 2 years and I was allowed out into the real world!

posted on 30/10/2008 02:39:12 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

sillady wrote:

Dear Madam,
Yes. I whole heartedly endorse Alison principle tenets for the following reasons:
It is a fact that when students receive their degrees they rarely wish to pay higher taxes that will be utilised for the higher education of the next generation of students. It is no gain saying that they become egocentric and selfish.
It is a fact that taxes are in fact a way of pooling scarce resources (through the revenue generated) for the benefit all. It is a way of insuring and ensuring that we all contribute to sharing the investment in the countries infrastructure its best asset-human capital.
It is a fact that the state requires the financial reources for its basic functions, and providing education or better still investing in its human capital is sine qua non for a better government. The rich are not as philantropic as their American counterparts who beaquith huge endowments to their universities.
It is a fact that Universities require funds to conduct research without which we fall behind in providing world class education to support economy to give us better economic prospects. Because universities need these funds and the government has only finite resources we as a nation have to make choices as to how best these resources are used.
If we enter into a contract to pay higher taxes then the government should step in. But not until we can contribute towards it.


EdwardSilla

posted on 30/10/2008 02:11:11 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Omoaregba wrote:

Dear Madam,

While I take side with Professor Anders Flodström against the proposition, I want to add a couple of statements that the good professor had overlooked. In the United States, the economic philosophy guiding the behavior of institutions and individuals what may be called economic individualism. It is a patently competition view of society and humanity. This is wrong! Americans colloquially refers to this philosophy as "dog eat dog." As one commentator puts it, "In the United States, the rule is get what you can and can what you get." All these are coming from a moribund and anachronistic worldview whose intellectual bases include Newtonian mechanics and Cartesianism geometry applied to society. it is reductionist in that these intellectual currents never fully explain human and social phenonema.

From a rational economic perspective, any population cannot eat their cake and still have it. If you want a few people to continue to exploit the vast majority a la slavery, then you can pretend that this is a democracy and everyone has equal opportunity to be rich or poor. Whereas what I perceive is an historical process that has a tendency to reproduce the traditional capitalist relation of production while using democratic propaganda to confuse our understanding of the relationship through which the few are able to garner more than their fair share of the social product at the expense of the vast majority. Asking individuals to pay for education (acquisition of knowledge) to be exploited through production institutions dominated by the privileged few is tantamount to economic abuse and undemocratic.

posted on 30/10/2008 02:00:21 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

luxetlibertas wrote:

Dear Madam,

Merit alone should steer the scarce educational resources to the most promising students and the most valuable teachers and researchers. It is not rational that incentives should depend on the wealth of a students family. Real achievement should be rewarded with opportunity. Lack of achievement should result in less favorable conditions and shorter educational trajectories, but always keeping open the road to recovery if enough effort is made.

Given high standards and a healthy competition among and within educational institutions, one can readily extract criteria for optimizing the allocation of resources, based on perceived utility to society. However, one must make sure the system cannot be gamed, for example by lowering standards, collusion or misuse of power.

Finally, given the system above, I see no need for anything but the most simple funding model: the state should pay for education. Money should stay scarce however and standards high, for there is no unlimited demand for lawyers, physicians, etc. Highly educated professionals will generally pay more in taxes, so providing the money for next generations.

posted on 30/10/2008 01:44:19 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

CatS wrote:

Dear Madam,

I think that individuals should be responsible for paying for their education, but that the government should ensure equitable access for all. For instance, in Australia, we have the HECS-HELP scheme, whereby students borrow interest-free from the government for the full cost of their education (up to equivalent 7 years' full time). When they graduate and enter the workforce, they repay the amount incrementally when their income is above a certain amount per year. This means that all individuals end up paying for their education, but that (thanks to the government) they secure their place at university on the basis of academic merit.

posted on 30/10/2008 00:51:55 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

EC wrote:

Dear Madam,

The proposition poses a false choice. The state and the individual are not the only possible payers for or beneficiaries of higher education. What about corporations, NGO's, private clubs, or third party individuals? In the US at least, all of these are stakeholders when it comes to getting individuals a university education.

That being the case, the proper answer is to let each stakeholder pay according to their interest and need. If some arm of the state requires, for example, diplomats with a specialized degree, then let the government attract students by offering to pay for their education in return for years of service. The US military does this as a standard offering. If a company needs to acquire more System Architects, and there aren't enough in the marketplace, then they can offer to pay to have their own people educated. If an individual wants to learn stultifying details about the history of European Thought in hopes of writing a treatise, then it is probably better for everyone if they find a way to pay for that themselves.

My primary objection to having the State pay for everything is to the idea that the individual exists to support the goals of the state, for instance by making it richer, less stratified, more competitive with other nations, etc.. I believe that the State exists to ensure that individuals are given the maximum liberty consistent with the social contract in that state. Even at it's best, higher education is still not for everybody, and forcing people to attempt to get more educated in order to improve "society" is a paternalitic argument that undervalues individuals and frankly overvalues the contributions of many of the so-called educated. We need more plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and help desk technicians than we do Womens Studies or Kinesiology majors.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 30/10/2008 00:30:48 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

Kees Beentjes wrote:

Dear Madam,

As some of your contributors already said, the proposition might be a little too black-and-white for the purpose of a good debate. However, I think that one particular aspect of higher education should stand out in the discussion. As far as I am concerned, higher education should be seen of one of the many things that a single individual or a group of individuals just cannot take care of. I would rather not confer with my neighbours (though very nice people) about the road that runs along our houses, or about the sewer system in our village. I’d rather not try to set up an electricity grid for our neighbourhood, or establish a harbour on the coast to have the necessary goods shipped in. Those are typically things that a government must take care of, and it (usually) does so much better than a group of individual citizens could do. The same goes for higher education. Provided for by the government: yes. Made genuinely accessible by the government: yes. Completely free for students: no. The latter is the reason why the proposition is too black-and-white. I reckon it is proper to ask a contribution from a graduate-to-be, if only to avoid anyone trying his or her hand on higher education without the right motivation. I think that having to pay a fee to get admitted might cause some much-needed soul-searching before embarking on such a challenging task as trying to become a graduate.

posted on 30/10/2008 00:21:37 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

jasonp wrote:

Dear Madam,

We live in an age of human capital. While there may be a society wide need to invest in human capital, the abolition of slavery means that the principal beneficiary of that capital is not society, but the individual. Raising taxes from poor people to invest in (soon to be) richer people is wrong. That should not be the default option in Western society.

There is a role for government in helping finance investment in education, but this should be largely in the form of loans. Higher education should be available to everyone who can benefit from it, but giving it away is immoral.

posted on 30/10/2008 00:17:21 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

gradely lad wrote:

Dear Madam,

President Bush is a prime example of how money provides access to higher education, but to no avail.

In contrast, many intelligent individuals with potential to benefit their country cannot afford, or are unwilling to face, the usurious fees demanded by the universities whose mantra appears to be to serve only those able to pay or having family connections.

Perhaps the genesis of a solution lies in an broad extension of educational support scheme offered to the US military in exchange for a period of public service. Coupled with strict entry criteria to eliminate the unqualified, irrespective of financial resources or connections, a cadre of motivated candidates could emerge.

posted on 30/10/2008 00:09:17 am Recommended (0) Report abuse

rickbod wrote:

Dear Madam,
Individuals should bear the burden of higher education tuition and fees. It would be irresponsible of governments to impose financial burdens on individual taxpayers to bear the burden of educating all citizens, and how would we define those citizens in a democratic way. We have established loan programs to help individuals attain, e.g., Sallie Mae and other programs established through Universities collaborative efforts with financial institutions for student loan programs. I believe the individual who pays for the higher education considers this an investment in their future and are motivated by the fact that it is an investment in themselves which in turn motivates them to contribute successfully to society in order to realize a return on their investment.

posted on 29/10/2008 23:57:43 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

soyapo wrote:

Dear Madam,

This is not a classless world nor in probability will it be. Therefore I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Wolf.

Meritocracy is the only viable means of moving the world forward. As we've seen from American public schools, socialized education does not work, it only lowers the standards for all.

Maintaining those standards does not preclude specialized education for those who are not academically inclined though.

Standards only assure quality of attainment.

posted on 29/10/2008 23:50:59 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Ngunna wrote:

Dear Madam,

The arguments both ways are sound but the question confuses payment with choice. The issue is giving people choices. People with money have choices and having choices enables markets to operate with the efficiencies that arise.

The state should pay but not provide. That way there is no debate.

There are many ways the state can pay but not provide. One way is each year every person is given money that they can only spend on education. While you are a child your money must be spent. If your parents decide to pay more than the amount you are given then a proportion of the extra amount paid is given to those who do not choose or who cannot pay more.

As an adult you can accumulate your payments and you can borrow against future payments and you can pay more if you wish without penalty.

As an adult if you abuse the system then you do not receive any more payments.

If a parent abuses the system with respect to the child then the child is given a different adult education guardian who is in charge of the child's education money.

posted on 29/10/2008 23:29:53 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Kirsty UK wrote:

Dear Madam,
I am a student and have to pay everything for myself including having a job to earn money to live. When I come out of uni I will have alot of debt to repay in exchange for a degree, which is already becoming less valuable due to the number of graduates out there. It is going to become harder to stand out in the workplace with so many people going to university. Having said that, it is an experience which I would not have missed out on and I think that it is unfair for poorer people to miss out.

posted on 29/10/2008 23:14:42 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Jim Bullis wrote:

Dear Madam,

In the USA we are now demonstrating an abysmal failure of education, higher and lower.

CNN recently aired an interview where the reporter asked Joe Biden, in reference to a 2001 comment by Obama that we "should spread the wealth" around, "How is this different from Marxism?" Biden first asked, "Is this a joke?" Then he tried to be polite and take it as a serious question, though it was so preposterous that he was clearly not prepared to deal with it. The question seemed to be an attempt to force people to think that a progressive tax system somehow equated to "evil communism," when it was actually first imposed by of the Theodore Roosevelt administration. There can always be a debate about detailed numbers, but the question was an attempt to raise the ire of the most uninformed, whereby the election process would be dumbed down to its worst popularity contest level, even more than it already is.

I would maintain that this exchange would not have taken place if the American people held a broad view of the social systems of the world. The reporter would not have attempted this twist of reality unless she expected to ensnare the ignorant.

Given that an informed electorate is essential to a democratic system of government, it would serve the general order to have this level of education be a basic responsibility of the state.

Some might say this is a matter for lower, not higher, education. Most higher education should include studies in World Civilization, Economics, Sociology, and Government. In government, the Constitution and the historical origins of its provisions should be fully explored, and this should definitely be at a time in a person's life when such detail would be fully appreciated.

I think we would be wise to underwrite this to a significant degree.

Unfortunately, it seems that the debate question is assuming that higher education is for the purpose of accumulating wealth. It seems reasonable for any country to work this out to suit its electorate. In Sweden it seems that education is free but taxes are high so accumulation of wealth is limited. It seems they must fine a way to strike some balance that leaves people with motivation. I would not say the process is very rational in the USA, but the arguement requires more time than I have available.

The more important questions relate to basic higher and lower education, not professional or trade education programs.

posted on 29/10/2008 23:10:29 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Dick Stoute wrote:

Dear Madam, This is not a yes/no issue. Dealing with it as such creates opposing sides who battle. If we had a better education we would use forums like this to find solutions, not play at war. Why not rephrase the question and try to get the interested parties to combine their efforts to help get higher education "higher" - perhaps save some costs, widen its reach, and eventually convince us that we need to get beyond "good and evil."

posted on 29/10/2008 23:04:49 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Rodolfo wrote:

Dear Madam,
1)Individuals benefit from higher education in the same way (or arguably less) as they do from education in general (particularly voluntary 6th form), NHS and indeed, directly or indirectly,from all state expenditure, which otherwise would be hard to justify. There is no logical reason for applying your argument just to higher education.
2)The financial benefits of higher education to individuals are paid for by the taxes that they pay on their earnings. Extra earnings produce extra taxes.
3)Since higher education leads automatically to entry into middle class, it is natural that the percentage of middle class students will increase with the growth of higher education. Higher education growth has been and is the main cause of middle class growth, much to be welcomed.
4)Research is most important to the country and indeed to mankind. However, only postgraduate students benefit from it, indeed are part of it. The benefits accruing to the education of undergraduates are at best minimal. There is no reason why they should pay for it.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:45:53 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Jimp wrote:

Dear Madam,

I agree with making higher education accessible but not to the point where the State picks up the tab.
Basic education is a must. Are there not defficiencies that have to be corrected in this area? Let countries devote more attention to this area -prinmarily!

posted on 29/10/2008 22:42:07 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Capitalist wrote:

Dear Madam,

Simply, state paid, sponsored and subsidized education is responsible for

Rising costs due to the increase in available funds
Degradation of the education received
the concept of success, shuld alone inspire people to go to college, and the trade off of paying for it needs to be evident- if not- there is no need to bribe students with state incentives which only devalue the service being subsidized- simply look at any other state sponsored program-

posted on 29/10/2008 22:35:26 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

SLNSC wrote:

Dear Madam,
Knowledge is unquestionably the reigning power in the emerging competitive world. The country owes to its citizens basic framework to encourage and provide incentives for higher education. Even if the beneficiaries migrate and contribute materially to other economies the Universities and in turn the State gain reputation and enrich their knowledge base and an ability to attract more worthy students. When money becomes the motive in higher education undeserving and not so bright students will get churned off to the society.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:31:08 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

revmarkpb wrote:

Dear Madam,

I am a chaplain of a church-related liberal arts college in the United States and I think that the individual bears the responsibility for financing his or her higher education. However, the financial costs are high and growing at a disproportionate rate. We have a national stake in an individual's education so governmental loans and grants are justifiable. I like the British policy of loan repayment when wages reach a certain level.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:29:55 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Maquila wrote:

Dear Madam,
When the poorer youngsters of one country are better educated than the poorer youngsters of another, the quality of life will generally be improved all for it's citizens.
It might help to think of alteranative methods of paying for one's education, such as nogatiating a contract with a business or government organizaton, to perform work or services for a number of years as repayment.
I feel it is a great disservice to my countrymen and to my country as a whole, when quality education is not accessable to all that are willing to study and learn, and have the intelligence.
Too often we see people in positions of power because they had resources to pay for an elite education, not necessarily because they had the intelligence to get there on their own...and that carries a far greater cost to the world as a whole. We have all seen examples of that during the last few years.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:27:56 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

mironteo wrote:

Dear Madam,
As an university lecturer I vote for a subsidized higher education (to avoid loosing intelligent but poor people), but combined with a stringent semestrial evaluation of the performances (to avoid poor final results based on bad investments for the state budget i.e. for the tax payers)
Miron Teodor

posted on 29/10/2008 22:21:55 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Dr. Ricardo Garrýs Valdez wrote:

Dear Madam:

Making individuals to pay for their own education is a sure vehicle to create a society of castes. A few educated and the masses uneducated, wasting a lot of creativity, geniuses even, in this misunderstood policies of the orthodox economists: hands of for the government.
Keynes was only speaking of the economic activity, not the social activities. You people inspired by the Austrian school have taken your egoism to new frontiers.

I am a beneficiary of the so called “free university education” which is not free; we pay higher taxes and take our societies to new highs. I would have been a revolutionary or trouble makers had I stayed uneducated; well, maybe a politician: same lurid result nonetheless.

Keep the cynicism out of the higher education, you “people that know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

posted on 29/10/2008 22:21:25 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

mario1229815333728 wrote:

Dear Madam,
The so called Higher Education is only an education step. Considering the costs of Higher Education leads us to ask if not Education at all should be paid!

posted on 29/10/2008 22:14:43 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Oyamadai wrote:

Dear Madam, In a globally mobile world, citizens educated in one country often will not spend their entire working life in that country. From the vantage point of the home country government, if brains drain out, then this is a loss for the home country. Having individuals pay for their own education makes them care more and demand better. That said, the government does and should have a interest in helping its citizens educate themselves, for instance with low cost student loans. Loans enable students to concentrate on their studies when they are students and pay back the public not only in their productivity for the general welfare, but also for the financial support during the student years.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:11:23 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Stansbury wrote:

Dear Madam,

With all do respect, the proposition is both wrong and right with regard to the US. US higher education in every form -- Ivy League to community college -- receives major public support. It includes direct institutional support to virtually all public institutions. Additionally, the top tier of both public and private institutions receive huge support in the form of research grants and contracts. All receive public support in the form of contributions that are "tax deductible."

Unfortunately, providing support to institutions is like giving the oats to the horses to feed the sparrows. Higher education in the United States has a terrible record on containing costs. Average increase in costs of higher education has been running at 2 to 3 times of the CPI. Likewise, a large share of the professors at America's top schools seldom if ever see the inside of classrooms or the eager faces or students. They have research contracts from the Department of Defense, BP, Beyer, or Boeing. The success of students in such schools is largely due to the selections process. As long as the faculty don't get in their way they will succeed. On the other side, I would agree that free is probably not the best stand alone option. People generally do not value "free goods." Individuals have to be committed and make some investments to provide a means to validated the process. Nonetheless, it is imperative that all individuals have the opportunity to access higher education via loans, options with variable costs, public service (VISTA, military, etc.) and that options be available beyond the first few years after secondary school.

素年锦时UID: 2610749

posted on 29/10/2008 22:10:06 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

lower outlier wrote:

Dear Madam,
In this globalised world human capital and education got much improtance than anything. As the new growth theorists argue a nation with high skilled human capital can sustain maintain its growth level, because human capital never cause for diminishing returns. So a democratic government can reap much from the educated population and the state provided education can create a social responsability among the citizen to contribute for the development of the country. So the cost of higher education must be bear by the state.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:08:08 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Patrick / Los Angeles wrote:

Dear Madam,

Not all of us can live in Sweden. Since the U.S. economy and I both benefit from my very expensive graduate business degree I don't see why the U.S. government and I shouldn't equally share the economic burden of funding it. Currently, I'm paying for all of it - so it's my cost and Uncle Sam's gain. At the very least, increasing the amount of government student loans would be an enormous improvement and a reasonable request.

Best regards,
Patrick Lechtenberger
California

posted on 29/10/2008 22:04:10 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Charleston SC wrote:

Dear Madam, People do not wash rental cars and do not paint homes they rent. The majority of people do not appreciate what is given to them. From personal experience, people will work harder when their own money has been invested.

posted on 29/10/2008 22:03:41 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Dr. Ricardo Garrýs Valdez wrote:

Dear Madam:

There is a saying in Spanish tyhat goes like this "to educate the rich is useless, to educate the poor, dangerous"; I am sure that this saying was made by the aristocrats of yester centuries that felt threatend by Bismark's reforms in Germany, one of them what is called "free education" por the people.

Well Germany has under its belt a quantum jump from barbarians to highly educated persons distingusihed by their technology.

Higher education is not fre; it is paid by society and society receives twofold benefits: social stability,peace, growth, higher level of education of the population; the other higher taxes paid by the ex-student: who will finance other students to attend university.

You people of the the far right are going to far with your egoism: it is self destructive.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:49:29 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Little John wrote:

Dear Madam, Individuals should pay for their own post secondary education. I understand that it's hard and if you one takes an education loan, that the repayment period is long and the requirements for self sacrifice is necessary. However, Mother and Dad or the Federal or State Government do not owe, nor should they be required to pay for sending an individual to an institution of higher learning. Mother and Dad, by all means can finance it or they can pay for it outright. That is their prerogative. That is their right to do so if they wish; however, it is not their obligation. I was born shortly after the depression and before WWII. My parents died while I was in high school. I had to quit school and go into military service in order to survive. It was a nasty awakening to me. As I continued with my service career, I learned that in order to get ahead it is necessary to work hard, study, go to school at night and on the weekends. When one pursues a career like that, one appreciates what they gain from their own labors, much more so than if it were given to them. Yes, it took me nearly 20 years to finish highschool, get an undergraduate degree and receive two masters degrees. I realized by the time I was 40 that an individual would need to continue learning all their life due to rapidly escalating technology growth. In order to continue to be competitive in the workplace one would need to always be learning new skills. In fact, if one is wise, they realize that you need to learn all your life. Whose obligation is it to fund that continuing education. Certainly not the government or ones parents, but the individual themselves. I have tried to infuse those concepts into the lives of my children. I was able to help them intellectually throughout their primary, secondary and post secondary education periods, but I did not fund their post secondary education. They made their choices and they are happy. Yes, I made loans to them, but they paid the money back, which I have since given back to them as our grandchildren and great grandchildren began to come on the scene. The lesson I learned was you appreciate something more when you work for it; much more so than when it is given to you on a silver platter.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:46:17 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Alexandre wrote:

Dear Madam,the topic is not people income, the real topic should be efficacy of the education system based on the quality of the education and its adjustment to the society needs in short, middle and long term balance. In social and economic terms is the return of the investment, the use of the taxes we pay, which is the question.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:45:16 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

fryel wrote:

Dear Madam,actually in capitalist idea,we have to pay for higher eduation,but if we look at the topic from equaliance approach frame, it must be free and governmet can take tax when graduated students began to work...I think every student deserve to get higher education and goverments can make encouragement by decreasing the fees....

posted on 29/10/2008 21:40:44 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

Hannu N. wrote:

Dear Madam,
being from Finland and having seen the benefits of the tax-payer paid education system, it is rather easy oppose the proposal.

Having state, in reality the taxpayers, to pay the higher education makes the education available to all skilled and motivated persons regardless of their social background. The education does not remain the priviledge of the wealthy priviledged ones, but is accessible to all. This contributed to the whole society as the gifted ones will be getting possibilities to use their skills.

The possibility of overflooding the university system with hapless students can be offsetted by having tight entrance examinations, so that only the motivated persons win the entrance to universities.

I believe that part of the success story in turning Finland during the past 100 years from a agriculture-oriented small country to the country that created Nokia and has produced several globally leading companies, lies with the free education model.

Having a wide pool of educated people increases also the benefits for other taxpayers. Part of the Nordic model with free education is also the "social contract" that high earners will pay relatively high taxes later in their life.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:39:16 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

DubTech wrote:

Dear Madam,
The debate is not about how the universities or schools are funded. If we consider the students as potential resources of the society, it stands to reason that the society nourishes the resource much as a farmer would tend to his crops. To ensure the same, the funding should focussed to avoid dilution of purpose viz. society's interest. Typically, such an interest would encourage movement meritorious students up the economic ladder. Surely a smart funding program can be designed to support the meritorious students. In its absence, only well heeled students will pursue education with little or no interest. I myself benefited from such scholorship assistance all thru' my education (2 IITs included) . My subsidized education helped uplift my family as well.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:31:52 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

hfuhruhurr wrote:

Dear Madam,
The individual does end up paying - more taxes through earning more money than non-graduates. But this is not enough. A simple solution - if you take longer to join the ranks of the workers (through education) then you pay for it by having your retirement age raised porportionately. Graduates live longer - they can certainly work longer before they get their state pension.

Simply take off the end off life what you add at the beginning. Education is then free. Everyone benefits.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:31:19 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

cynic8 wrote:

DThe government should make education, of all kinds [from apprenticeships to raduate school available to those that are able to learn at the given level. Determining who too educate with what is a profoind problem, that can be adequately resoved. THere is not reason tohavve peoplebecome lifetime students. Theere is also no rreason to prevent peoole from oobtaining mulltiple qaualifications. Making educaation availaable to all also means making ALL levels of education essentially the same for ALL children and adults. To an extent this has limits. Some families are hostile to education and limit the extent to which children can benefit. These are prolems to be solved, without the bar of funding.ear Madam,

posted on 29/10/2008 21:27:58 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

DaaBoom wrote:

Dear Madam,

In paragraph 14, Professor Wolf praise a user-pay system based on its merit as a incentive system on the participant.

I believe that misses the point. From the student perspective, modern American students pay for their education through (1) student loans or (2) parent’s money. The pain of earning that money is either borne by their (1) future self or (2) parents. Without that pain, most would not spend the money with diligence. The disincentive to study hard is apparent if one sees the parties in any American Dormitory.

From a lecturer perspective, the debate operates under the illusion that the payment system will affect lecturer’s behavior. In reality, it’s not who pays that matters but how it is paid. Professors are evaluated based on the research they publish. Together with the fact that most people who pursue an academic career are curious people who want to extend human knowledge, it’s no wonder that they spend all their time working on their research. Until universities can separate their function as research institutes and their function as teaching facilities, lecturers are going to view teaching as a burden.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:23:36 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

juanmro wrote:

Dear Madam, in some countries maybe the idea are good, in Switzerland probably, Sweden and maybe in another equilibrate country like those but in places like Argentina or the United States where many talented people don't have resources to expend in a high education, may be this proposal is unfair.
I'm agree with the original proposal but if the State make educational policies to improve the young people to follow specialities that the State need to develope their necesities. The State need to have the availability of resources to give some people the oportunity to go to the university, may be with some previous exams or tests. In some cases with loans, with the compromise of the student to give to the State and another citizen the same opportunity to take a high education.
May be my proposal look a little complicated but not, some governments make the things complicated, the corruption -like in my country- make some things complicated or bad.
Everybody need to have an opportunity, but just for those one's who show's the capacity and the real commitment with the society who give him the chance to be what he really want.

posted on 29/10/2008 21:23:30 pm Recommended (0) Report abuse

santina gatto wrote:

Dear Madam,

In my opinion the role of a State also consists in pointing out to citizens the "way ahead", according to a shared platform of values posed at the foundation of same State. This is what we generally call leadership. Thus, if a State’s founding principle is that building competent "human capital" is an investment for the future, and that all citizens should be given the chance to be forged in such sense regardless of social and economic differences, not financing (at least partly) higher education would result in abdicating its leadership and creation of a vision for the future. This would be extremely detrimental, especially in light of the fact that we live in a consumerist society in which short-sighted values and immediate gains often prevail over medium-long term goals and considerations (e.g., see the debate going on in the EU whether the 20/20/20 environmental protection target should be dropped in the name of immediate financial relief to our industries!). What I mean is that, given the times we live in, most people who for their social, economic or intellectual position are not naturally inclined to recognize the value of higher education given the long “payback period” of such investment, would certainly not be pushed to do so by a State which did not portray higher education as one of its top values, thus worth taxpayers’ money investing.

The US example you mention seems incomplete to me. In fact, in the US the “American dream” is the driver spurring students to embark on costly loans in order to finance their university studies and make their “dream” come true, and pushing universities to compete for excellence and attract the best talents. Thus, in the US the value (the American dream) the State embraces drives students’ individual choices and universities’ competitive behaviour. However, let’s take my country, Italy. Just today a