| On those university fees |
 |
 |
| Written by Tim Worstall |
| Sunday, 01 June 2008 06:03 |
|
Angela Phillips is concerned about the possibility that the cap on universtiy fees might be raised. Should our world-class universities be allowed to operate like football clubs and raise entry fees in order to pay the higher wages it takes to attract the Beckhams of the academic establishment? I for one would welcome an influx of monosyllabic academics who were actually good at what they do, yes, and if raising tuition fees is the only way to achieve it then I'm all for that plan. A little more seriously: Are we really ready to contemplate the possibility that education is not about social justice and that we should save the best minds in the world to educate a bunch of bankers and lawyers? Because that what we are talking about if we allow a market to develop in higher education. No, education isn't about social justice: it might be a means of achieving some but that's a by product. The aim of education is, as the very word itself implies, to educate people, no, not just for the economic value of their subsequent output, but in the sense of aiding in the development of the full and rounded personality. The liberation of the whole human being if you wish. However, before I get accused of being a little too New Age in my outlook, this doesn't mean that fees should not be uncapped. The people who benefit from the higher education system are those who go through it: not just in the higher rewards that some of them get in the jobs market, but in that greater appreciation of life which a rounded education will aid. Just as it should be the polluter who pays, so should it be those who benefit who pay. In this case the soon-to-be graduates should pay for the costs of the system which provides then with the benefits that graduation will bring. The only alternative is that higher education be paid for from the tax system - and it's very difficult to see a moral argument that those who do not benefit from having graduated should have to pay the costs of the system which benefits those who do. Free the fees and not just allow but encourage a market to develop in higher education. As I've said before, there are things which are simply to important for them to be excluded from the market. Comments (5)
...
written by Arthur, June 01, 2008
"it's very difficult to see a moral argument that those who do not benefit from having graduated should have to pay the costs of the system which benefits those who do".
What? Bit left wing for ASI isn't it? I thought the whole nation benefited from high calibre graduates. The ones who end up running big companies, I thought, benefited the rest by providing them with employment and other opportunities to make money as they spent their fat salaries on consumption. And the ones who simply develop a "full and rounded personality", I thought, benefited the rest by not feeling the need to stab them in the face for looking at them the wrong way.
I never knew that the trivium could be considered
written by Paul, June 02, 2008
"The aim of education is, as the very word itself implies, to educate people, no, not just for the economic value of their subsequent output, but in the sense of aiding in the development of the full and rounded personality. The liberation of the whole human being if you wish. However, before I get accused of being a little too New Age in my outlook, this doesn't mean that fees should not be uncapped."
New age? Sounds more like a liberal arts education to me.
...
written by Steve Giess, June 02, 2008
Did Adam Smith know, before he went, that going to Oxford was going to be a rip-off?
Almost... written by robert arbon, June 02, 2008
To deny, or rather not to acknowledge that there positive externalities associated with education is a bit short sighted I think. Other people do indeed benefit from a high level of education. That doesn't change the argument of course - universities should be able to charge whatever fees they like, the education/college premium should be enough to cover costs (or would be if education wasn't subsidised) of a loan.
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
About the ASI
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Join our email list
Email info@adamsmith.org if you would like to subscribe to our fortnightly e-bulletin.
In fact given what some universities currently charge and the implicit offer that this signifies, it might not take long before one of them gets sued by a disappointed student for misrepresentation.
To foul it up with a Real Madrid has no major consequences but to go down the route of monetizing the franchise value of our universities could spell disaster.
By the way I am currently recommending my daughter and her young friends that when they take off for their MBA they offer a couple of basis points on their first 10 years earnings to those teachers they feel could best advance their careers…it should make wonders!
There should be a limit on how much of the tuition could be charged upfront and the rest has to depend on the results. A professors´ future should be secured by the results of their students and not by the reinvestment of huge ex ante salaries.
Since a professor can diversify his portfolio of investments in students much easier than a student can diversify his investment in professors, should it not be the other way round?… that professors paid the best students to attend their classes and thereby keep their reputation high?
Aligning the incentives is also the best way for parents and students when picking a university. “Which university trusts itself to best deliver the results for our Tom by charging the lowest fee upfront and the lowest percentage on his future earnings?”
In other words education should in fact be more of a joint venture between students, teachers, and universities.