Adam Smith Institute

An article on the BBC’s website entitled ‘UK slipping down graduate league’ attracted my attention. Interesting, I thought, this must be an evaluation of how the quality of students popping out of British universities has slipped below that of other countries. Not the case. Instead, the article read like a fistful Blairite nonsense about the knowledge economy, and how we need more people in universities in order to compete with the rising economies of China and India. You get the idea.

The article suggests that politicians may need to suck us for more taxes to raise the number of young people going to university to upwards of 60 percent. No thanks. As I was wisely told when I was a kid: “just because everyone else is doing it, that doesn’t mean you have to”. Countries competing in graduates to improve their economies remind me of synchronized swimmers at the Olympics: a lot of splashing, looks pretty, but not much result. A lesson can be learned from Eastern Europe. When working in a bar to pay for my own questionable education, a fair number of the ubiquitous Polish waitresses had been educated ad infinatum, persuaded by massive state subsidies. Little good it did them. There were no jobs in Poland. Their universities did not deliver a growing, competitive economy.

The solution to all this is simple, but frankly beyond the stomach of most politicians. Free universities from the state, and in so doing allow the market to decide the price for education. If it is value for their time and money, the student will choose to go to university. We don't an aribitrary target, be it 50 percent, or 60 percent, or whatever. The economy is far more dynamic and flexible than that.

What about the poor? Well, the poor are not stupid. And if they are, they really should not be thinking about going to university. Thus, if it is worth their time and money, they can borrow the money to invest in their future. If people don’t go to university they can do an apprenticeship, start a business or get a job. All potential paths to personal wealth that will also benefit the economy. Simple.

Last week The Times reported that the America's Ivy League group of elite universities has begun to actively target Britain's top students. I'm pleased to hear it – the competition will do Britain's complacent universities some good.

It's not hard to imagine the UK's brightest school-leavers being tempted across the atlantic. For starters, being private (rather than state-financed) institutions, the Ivy League schools have built up enormous endowment funds to help people pay for their studies. At Yale, for instance, " students with a family income of less than £34,000 a year do not have to pay for anything. Even those whose parents earn a joint salary of up to £70,000 are eligible for some support." Better funding also means better facilities, smaller classes, and so on.

But I think the main reason British students would want to go to the US is that universities there actually teach their students. Because they rely on their students (not the government) for funding, American universities are much more attentive to their needs and requirements. Of course, there are some excellent universities and top-notch academics in the UK too – but all too often what Adam Smith said over 200 years ago still stands:

"[T]he great part of the public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretence of teaching."

And...

"The discipline of colleges and universities is in general contrived, not for the benefit of the students, but for the interest, or more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters."

The solution? More independence from the state, and more private funding. You can read Terence Kealey's briefing on 'Transforming Higher Education" here.

As if the first day back at school wasn’t bad enough, children starting secondary school in England this week will be the first to be legally required to stay in education until they are 17. Next year, the mandatory school leaving age will rise again to 18 for next year's secondary school starters, with the aim of getting more young people into further education.

And while those filtering through the school gates in Scotland can look forward to leaving the clutches of the education system at 16, they may now find themselves restricted from enjoying a drink in the confines of their own home until they are 21. Under new proposals, under 21s in Scotland will be barred from buying alcohol from supermarkets and off-licenses in order to stem the binge-drinking epidemic sweeping the nation.

The state would argue that these measures will prevent youngsters from falling into a life of booze-fuelled crime – a noble aim. But, why is it simply not enough to advertise the benefits of staying in school or the dangers of alcohol and leave young adults to choose? Indeed, the moves appear to be symptomatic of a wider belief that young people do not have the capacity to make informed and sensible choices. It is these young people that are then chastised for lacking personal responsibility. If the state wants young people to shoulder their responsibilities then it stands to reason that they must be given the chance to learn to exercise them. And that includes making decisions that might not necessarily be in their best interests and learning from them.

And, another thought (or three). First, if schools were forced to compete to attract pupils (as they would do under proposals to adopt a model of school choice in the UK) maybe they would do more to try to keep them there? Second, blaming cheap supermarket booze for our social ills ignores the deeper cultural issues that make British drinkers more susceptible to drinking too much. Countries with far less restrictive attitudes to alcohol tend to have fewer problems with youth alcohol abuse. Third, perhaps legislators need to consider that it is the existence of the welfare state that has promoted low levels of aspiration and personal responsibility among young people leading both to school dropouts and the existence of a binge-drinking culture?