Comments for On those university fees at http://adamsmith.org , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://adamsmith.org Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:25:21 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://adamsmith.org/blog/education/on-those-university-fees-200806011486/#comment-346 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. - robert arbon Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:51:42 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/education/on-those-university-fees-200806011486/#comment-345 Did Adam Smith know, before he went, that going to Oxford was going to be a rip-off? - Steve Giess Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:41:55 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/education/on-those-university-fees-200806011486/#comment-343 "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. - Paul Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:42:48 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/education/on-those-university-fees-200806011486/#comment-340 "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. - Arthur Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:16:24 +0100 http://adamsmith.org/blog/education/on-those-university-fees-200806011486/#comment-338 Pure nonsense as there is no real market and higher professor wages are not necessarily adequately aligned with any specific results. 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. - Per Kurowski Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:03:57 +0100