Tuition fees/loans should be scrapped

[unbeliever]

And I expect that people called it over education when staying until 16 was made compulsory.

 

I expect other people called it communism, or at least accused the state of being over-bearing.

 

 

State direction about what people should study, or what courses should be on offer.

Communism is all about central planning, and since degree level education is heavily linked to what the economy needs in terms of graduates it sounds pretty communist to plan what subjects are available and to how many people.

I thought you liked the free market? Let people study what they want, the fact that they want to work afterwards will direct them to choose appropriate subjects.

The shortage of graduates should push up pay for such graduates and that should encourage more people to study the subject.

 

The higher education market is already skewed.

The existence of government backed loans on artificially generous terms has removed the link between the economic value of a degree and the facility to borrow to undertake it.

If students were required to borrow commercially to fund their studies, they would be refused finance if they were undertaking studies which would not put them in a position to repay the loans and interest.

All I'm trying to do is get some of the incentives that a free market system would provide back into a skewed system.

I'm not proposing that the state should prevent people from studying things other than what they judge best. But as long as the government is in the business of skewing the education market, they could at least put in place some of the incentives and advice that commercial lenders and the free market as a whole would have put in place if the government stayed out of it.

[TJC1]

I pay mine as well.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 22:29 ----------

 

 

I've paid my taxes all my working life so don't lecture me, the two tossers across the road have never paid any tax but they can get money for booze, fags and wacky backer.

 

you seem unduly irritated with these ex students - they steal your wheelie bin or something?

[Cyclone]

I expect other people called it communism, or at least accused the state of being over-bearing.

 

 

 

The higher education market is already skewed.

The existence of government backed loans on artificially generous terms has removed the link between the economic value of a degree and the facility to borrow to undertake it.

On the contrary, degree's used to be free. The fact that some debt is now taken on in order to study means that the link has been created.

On the other hand we don't want it to be entirely market driven because that would price the poor out of higher education.

If students were required to borrow commercially to fund their studies, they would be refused finance if they were undertaking studies which would not put them in a position to repay the loans and interest.

All I'm trying to do is get some of the incentives that a free market system would provide back into a skewed system.

The poor would also be refused loans and so would be priced out of education, harming social mobility massively.

I'm not proposing that the state should prevent people from studying things other than what they judge best. But as long as the government is in the business of skewing the education market, they could at least put in place some of the incentives and advice that commercial lenders and the free market as a whole would have put in place if the government stayed out of it.

The government is doing less to skew the market than they have ever done in the past (when degree's were free and maintenance grants existed).

[unbeliever]

On the contrary, degree's used to be free. The fact that some debt is now taken on in order to study means that the link has been created.

On the other hand we don't want it to be entirely market driven because that would price the poor out of higher education.

The poor would also be refused loans and so would be priced out of education, harming social mobility massively.

The government is doing less to skew the market than they have ever done in the past (when degree's were free and maintenance grants existed).

 

I would agree that the market is less skewed than if the students took no financial responsibility, but it's still highly skewed.

 

Less skewed is still skewed.

 

If the system were entirely market driven, then commercial loans would be available to those students who had shown the ability to do well at a degree likely to get them a well paid job. It would not be available to others. Interest rates would of course be higher as these would be unsecured high risk loans.

Rich kids would indeed be at an unfair advantage being able to self fund, or offer collateral for their loans, so that they could do useless degrees or degrees they were likely to fail. I'm not sure that would be to their advantage but still.

With the current system of loans for almost any student doing almost any degree there is insufficient connection between what degrees are useful and what degrees are undertaken.

 

We seem to agree that government backed loans (as socialist as they are ideologically) are generally a good idea. But that government intervention in something like this skews the market and allows/encourages people to make bad decisions about what to study. I'm suggesting that the government should vary the terms of their intervention based on sensible criteria. The idea being to emulate to a limited extent what the market would do if the state were not involved, and thereby mitigate the perverse incentives their existing scheme creates. What's wrong with that?

[truman]

what degrees are useful

 

Could you define a useful degree?

[unbeliever]

Could you define a useful degree?

 

Not completely. But it can be defined using research.

It's determined by skills shortages/vacancies in the economy.

[May Blob]

you seem unduly irritated with these ex students - they steal your wheelie bin or something?

You seem to condone their conduct, Hmm wonder why, hit a raw nerve I reckon.

[TJC1]

You seem to condone their conduct, Hmm wonder why, hit a raw nerve I reckon.

 

its not about that. I asked why it bothers you so much...too much time on your hands? Curtain twitcher? Jealous?

 

---------- Post added 25-08-2015 at 18:36 ----------

 

Not completely. But it can be defined using research.

It's determined by skills shortages/vacancies in the economy.

 

Too right.

we dont agree on everything. But you hit the bullseye.

[Cyclone]

I would agree that the market is less skewed than if the students took no financial responsibility, but it's still highly skewed.

 

Less skewed is still skewed.

 

If the system were entirely market driven, then commercial loans would be available to those students who had shown the ability to do well at a degree likely to get them a well paid job. It would not be available to others.

University would be more readily available to rich families who didn't need a loan. And THAT single point is why a paid for system (such as the US has) is sub optimal.

Rich kids would indeed be at an unfair advantage being able to self fund, or offer collateral for their loans, so that they could do useless degrees or degrees they were likely to fail. I'm not sure that would be to their advantage but still.

They would simply be far more likely to do any degree, useful or not. And that is to societies detriment.

With the current system of loans for almost any student doing almost any degree there is insufficient connection between what degrees are useful and what degrees are undertaken.

 

We seem to agree that government backed loans (as socialist as they are ideologically) are generally a good idea. But that government intervention in something like this skews the market and allows/encourages people to make bad decisions about what to study. I'm suggesting that the government should vary the terms of their intervention based on sensible criteria. The idea being to emulate to a limited extent what the market would do if the state were not involved, and thereby mitigate the perverse incentives their existing scheme creates. What's wrong with that?

 

Perhaps it was just the way you worded it that I objected too. It sounded like you were suggesting central control where certain degrees were simply not allowed and others were mandated.

A more nuanced approach, with lower interest rate loans for STEM subjects (for example) might be appropriate. Or even grants or bursaries for subjects that have a shortfall of students.

[unbeliever]

Perhaps it was just the way you worded it that I objected too. It sounded like you were suggesting central control where certain degrees were simply not allowed and others were mandated.

A more nuanced approach, with lower interest rate loans for STEM subjects (for example) might be appropriate. Or even grants or bursaries for subjects that have a shortfall of students.

 

That sounds much more reasonable.