All entries for Saturday 21 May 2005

Top Up Fees (2) – Why Should Government pay ANYTHING?

Follow-up to Top–Up Fees Arguments from COOL LINKS

This is my response to Max and Iyobosa who posted in the comments box of my last entry on this subject.

Both of their arguments seem to me very rational and reasonably argued, which is refreshing.

I strongly agree with Iyobosa that there is a big difference between government paying the costs, and government making available unsecured credit for people at a time when they will have no assets with which to secure at loan at a reasonable level of interest. While I think that still needs to be justified, I don't think it is a very hard task to do so, and with suitable terms and conditions, there should be universal access to loans for undergraduate studies.

I accept that society might be thought to gain from ideal positive externalities (as the economists might say) of a population with undergraduate degrees. But to what extent, and whether it justified the cost calls for very careful thought, even if it is difficult to quantify. We are talking a lot of money here, and it could be used for other things, by government, or by individuals by lowering taxes.

But there are in any case, I feel, so many collateral problems. It might be all very well to pay for a fine arts student who will contribute beauty, or even an English student who will sustain our great traditions of literature (although I think such notions are highly contestable), but can the same be said of a law or accountancy student, who is principally out for himself. Should there be a distinction? And what if not enough students want to do the things society wants - not enough want to do computer engineering or music. Should the government pay to produce a society with an imbalance of skills and qualiifications?

But the thing about society contributing to what benefits society is that not everyone shares equally in these benefits, but they all have to pay for them.
(a) The overall benefits of a cultured world are enjoyed and used by the cultured and educated, and not even in this country. What sufficiently great general benefit accured to most people that it justifies making them pay for it with their taxes;
(b) As well as society benefitting, individuals benefit discretely, and are responsible for the degree of benefit attained. It would surely be reasonable if government was paying for university education for individuals, for government to insist
      (i) on reviewing the progress all students were making to decide if they were making sufficiently good use of their opportunity paid for by the people;
      (ii) that absoutely everyone who could attain the minimum matriculation requirements for a university should be given the money to do so. That might mean they entered general low-level courses in their first year - but they would get the chance of a 4-year BA/BSc course like everyone else. There would need to be enough places for everyone who wanted to do this to do so.

There are major consequences here - the cost anyone being able to proceed to a degree are massive compared with the current situation even. But less than that is just privilege for a few - who says society only benefits from a certain percentage being able to achieve admission to university -- and why does it change? It used to be 5%, now it's 35% - it's supposed to reach 50% of the population. Why not 100% of those minimally qualfiied and wishing to do so? (Of course, the univerisites and courses most in demand would still be elite).

It is the last point that in effect answers the point about why government should pay for any education - education from 5 to 16 is compulsory and therefore universal. While there are practical issues about fairness and efficiency, there can be no argument in principle that if government makes something that costs compulsory, it had better provide it (though you are free to provide an alternative at your own cost). For 16-18 education is as a policy universally available for anyone meeting minimum admission requirements - and is encouraged, but not compulsory. Again, it is reasonable for government to pay tuition costs for something everyone can benefit from.

Charles Bourne : 21 May 2005 23:34 |  Comments (8) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Top–Up Fees Arguments

It struck me today that in all the debate that has been going on for some time now about university top-up fees, arguments have really only touched on parts of the issue - should the government make university education free? should students pay any part of tuition costs? How would poorer students be affected?

But, nobody looks at the fundamental questions, which need to be resolved if the current debate is to make sense.

Nobody has asked - as they should do - why should the government pay anything at all towards the costs of obtaining an undergraduate degree? Why should there be any government contribution towards fees for any student?

I wonder what the arguments are. The fact that the government has done so in the past is no argument, after all - why did they do so? I can think of some reasons, but none of them seem very good to me. I have to say I can see no good argument why the government should pay anything towards individuals being educated at university. But I'm almost certainly blind to the obvious reasons staring me in the face.

Charles Bourne : 21 May 2005 21:55 |  Comments (9) |  Close comments |  Trackbacks (1) |  Report a problem

Our Boys in Iraq (Brits Goofing Off)

Last week I read a news item in The Times about a comic video that a group of squaddies out in Iraq had made - which apparently become a hugely popular private joke inside the British army, e-mailed around the world from base to base. But there was no website link, and I never got to see it. So it was fun when I came across a link to it on an American website today (subtitled "Brits Goofing Off").

And very charming it is too. It is a send-up of a video in which comedian Peter Kay mimes to Tony Christie’s 1971 song "Is This the Way to Amarillo", relased in support of Comic Relief last year. The army video "showed Sgt Roger Parr, 34, and colleagues from the Royal Tank Regiment marching through the base, waving guns, parading bandages and even sitting on portable lavatories." It's a real feel-good movie.

You can see the army video by clicking here - give it time to download! (you can also download the file from a link on the page).

(If, as I hadn't, you've never seen the Comic Relief "original", there's a 45-second clip availabe here, which is all you need to get the idea. The squaddie version is much better!)

Charles Bourne : 21 May 2005 15:07 |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem