[MaxMaxMax]

(Original post by Quady)
Can I assume you're ignoring this as you realise its BS...?

Of course the annual deficit is much less than this, but the accumulated government debt IS practically a trillion pounds:

"At the end of December 2009 general government debt was £950.4 billion, equivalent to 68.1 per cent of GDP."

[MaxMaxMax]

(Original post by Quady)
Well I'd ignore the uni and base the subsidy on A Level performance, otherwise you're hitting a 'bad' uni twice for targetting a market of with lower A Level grades.

Otherwise how are you going to measure how good/bad the uni is?

The degree subsidy side can never work particularly well. Chemistry might have a higher subsidy than Management (lets say) but Chemistry with Management might get a higher subsidy than either. Thats a pretty tough sell to both potential chemistry and management students.

Why couldnt the subsidy purely be done on A Level performance? Keep it simple otherwise the cost of the admin to work all this out annually would be nuts.

I'm open to proposals when it comes to the mechanism. It's just that someone with AAA who for some reason chooses a less productive subject really shouldn't get as much funding as if he chose a more demanding, useful subject.

[MaxMaxMax]

(Original post by River85)
That there just proves my point. You clearly don't know what a photography degree contains. Or, if you do, you're deliberately trying to triviliase it by suggesting it's only "taking holiday snaps".

If you're not being serious, then trivialising degrees (and using fictional degrees as examples) does great damage to your argument. If you are being serious, then you don't know how skilled and creative a photograher needs to be (and not just in taking the photopgrah and knowing what makes a "good photopfraphy but also a range of photo editing computer packages).

Do you know how much a photographer can earn? They are often quite well paid.

Ah jeez, you guys really aren't fans of parsimony are you? Of course with photography you need to know how the camera works (basic electronics), what makes a good composition of a photo (art) and how to use computer programs like Photoshop (IT), but no-one in their right mind would claim this is even comparable (in terms of both academic rigour and use to society -remember in most cases photography is of mere leisure use, far less important than something like Medicine) to something like Maths, History or Law.

[Quady]

(Original post by MaxMaxMax)
I'm open to proposals when it comes to the mechanism. It's just that someone with AAA who for some reason chooses a less productive subject really shouldn't get as much funding as if he chose a more demanding, useful subject.

I'm not sure anyone really has the right to be telling a A*A*A*A* student what they should or shouldn't be doing, chances are they'll be making the right choice and will be paying way more than their fair share back in tax.

For example, a mate of mine got AAAA (in '03) did product design at Brunel - I'm guessing that wouldn't score highly? It was the best of the three places that did the course they wanted to do. Now they are doing what they wanted when they applied. Running a small design business employing a few staff that they started in their final year.

If you can explain why they should have been unneccessarily burdened to get the appropriate skills/experience to do that then you're a better person than me!

[Tithonius]

Hehe! Despite the ridiculousness of all this it actually opens up a useful debate.

I think you might give me O.K. funding despite the 'artiness' of my degree (Ancient History & English) However, this discussion feeds into what is 'useful' for society not just what is economically productive and most likely to lead to a job.

Your system could lead to degrees in:

* Motherhood Studies
* Cleaning and Sweeping Studies
* Emigrating.
* Call Centreology
* Tescology

Well some of these are deliberately provocative - but you get my general point.........

[Quady]

(Original post by MaxMaxMax)
Of course the annual deficit is much less than this, but the accumulated government debt IS practically a trillion pounds:

"At the end of December 2009 general government debt was £950.4 billion, equivalent to 68.1 per cent of GDP."

Don't say of course - it was your quote thats being corrected!

[River85]

(Original post by Quady)
I quite like the fee being related to A Level performance. Those people with better grades have shown they are suitible for higher education, the rest are a bit of a punt by the state.

In theory, yes. In practice, not always.

As I mentioned in a thread the other day, people do underperform for a number of reasons whether personal or medical.

I have significant health problems during my A-levels (assualted during my GCSE summer, have a post-traumatic stress reaction and depression throughout the two years - later diagnosed as bipolar disorder). Also undiagnosed epilepsy (seizures became even more frequent during sixth form - two a day) not to mention the undiagnosed dyspraxia. Fortunately this was 2001 - 2003 when entry requirements were lower (still missed my Durham offer )

I was at a top (faith) school but only managed BBB in the end, despite clearly being an AAA student. I realise BBB is still a good result, even for someone without such significant mitigating circumstances. Still, if a student who achieves AAA/AAB gets extra money, or free tution fees and I (or someone in a similar situation who is every bit as capable as the AAA student doesn't) then that is rather unfair. But then it's true that life is unfair. We have to deal with these things

But those who achieve the better grades (BBB or above?) are mainly from middle income families attending excellent state and grammar schools, or the wealthy privately educated. It would need to be weighted according to school performance and social class. This would be a rather complex process.

[MaxMaxMax]

(Original post by Tithonius)
Hehe! Despite the ridiculousness of all this it actually opens up a useful debate.

I think you might give me O.K. funding despite the 'artiness' of my degree (Ancient History & English) However, this discussion feeds into what is 'useful' for society not just what is economically productive and most likely to lead to a job.

Your system could lead to degrees in:

* Motherhood Studies
* Cleaning and Sweeping Studies
* Emigrating.
* Call Centreology
* Tescology

Well some of these are deliberately provocative - but you get my general point.........

None of those go anywhere nearer requiring full-blown degrees though lol

[MaxMaxMax]

(Original post by Quady)
Don't say of course - it was your quote thats being corrected!

Well people mean different things when they discuss the deficit, there's the annual amount and the accumulated total. Both are relevant, but the accumulated total more so because that's what the poor (mostly)-Conservative government has got to pay back, thanks to Labour's incompetence at saving for a rainy day when times are (economically) good.

[MaxMaxMax]

(Original post by River85)
In theory, yes. In practice, not always.

As I mentioned in a thread the other day, people do underperform for a number of reasons whether personal or medical.

I have significant health problems during my A-levels (assualted during my GCSE summer, have a post-traumatic stress reaction and depression throughout the two years - later diagnosed as bipolar disorder). Also undiagnosed epilepsy (seizures became even more frequent during sixth form - two a day) not to mention the undiagnosed dyspraxia. Fortunately this was 2001 - 2003 when entry requirements were lower (still missed my Durham offer )

I was at a top (faith) school but only managed BBB in the end, despite clearly being an AAA student. I realise BBB is still a good result, even for someone without such significant mitigating circumstances. Still, if a student who achieves AAA/AAB gets extra money, or free tution fees and I (or someone in a similar situation who is every bit as capable as the AAA student doesn't) then that is rather unfair. But then it's true that life is unfair. We have to deal with these things

But those who achieve the better grades (BBB or above?) are mainly from middle income families attending excellent state and grammar schools, or the wealthy privately educated. It would need to be weighted according to school performance and social class. This would be a rather complex process.

I already mentioned a consideration of state or private school in the overall formula/mechanism.

[SciFiRory]

they could just raise some taxes on people who can afford to pay them and use that money to fund University Education, its how they fund every other aspect of our education system, I dont see why education should be free for everyone until Uni and then suddenly you have to pay or take on debt.

[matt608]

Basicaly OPs idea is to making a sort of "Google algorithm". The problem is there are too many factors. For example, one factor is maintaining a tolerable level of inequality. If things become too unequal in a society, it breaks. If its people are spread too thinly over too much bread, it won't be a thriving... piece of toast. Then you have to work out how much of a factor University education is in the overall stability in society, and factor that in etc. It's just way too complicated!

Better to keep nice simple equality rights rather than switching to this Utilitarian ideal. However, some aspects can be used, such as shutting down funding for the worst Universities - effectivly cutting funding to the least intelligent students.

[Quady]

(Original post by River85)
In theory, yes. In practice, not always.

As I mentioned in a thread the other day, people do underperform for a number of reasons whether personal or medical.

I have significant health problems during my A-levels (assualted during my GCSE summer, have a post-traumatic stress reaction and depression throughout the two years - later diagnosed as bipolar disorder). Also undiagnosed epilepsy (seizures became even more frequent during sixth form - two a day) not to mention the undiagnosed dyspraxia.

I was at a top (faith) school but only managed BBB in the end, despite clearly being an AAA student. I realise BBB is still a good result, even for someone without such significant mitigating circumstances. Still, if a student who achieves AAA/AAB gets extra money, or free tution fees and I (or someone in a similar situation who is every bit as capable as the AAA student doesn't) then that is rather unfair. But then it's true that life is unfair. We have to deal with these things

But those who achieve the better grades (BBB or above?) are mainly from middle income families attending excellent state and grammar schools, or the wealthy privately educated. It would need to be weighted according to school performance and social class. This would be a rather complex process.

Yeah I think that would be a bit of 'life is unfair'.

I'd leave the option open for retakes. A gap year to do so would hardly be the end of the world if the student so choose to save money.

If the reasons for underperformance were ongoing so the grades couldn't be improved then its not underperforming potential but its the new potential which would reasonably limit future tax take/contribution to scoiety as anyone else with the potential for that grade level, hence the fee applied being 'fair'.

I don't believe it needs to be weighted according to school attended but I understand theres a valid arguement there. As far as I see it, if you have the potential and the drive you can do it. Its not as easy though thats for sure. My personal conjecture would suggest A Level performance is a much better indicator of future prospects than degree classwhich in turn relates to tax tax further down the line.

Social class is impossible, nobody can agree on a consistant definition.

However you cut the arguement its never fair, the aim is to get the least unfair approach. Personally I'd be pretty comfortable with being rewarded for achievement. Price Harry wouldn't have done so well under this arrangement :P

[Quady]

(Original post by MaxMaxMax)
Well people mean different things when they discuss the deficit, there's the annual amount and the accumulated total. Both are relevant, but the accumulated total more so because that's what the poor (mostly)-Conservative government has got to pay back, thanks to Labour's incompetence at saving for a rainy day when times are (economically) good.

No, only people who are wrong talk about a deficit when discussing the accumulated :P

[Quady]

(Original post by SciFiBoy)
they could just raise some taxes on people who can afford to pay them and use that money to fund University Education, its how they fund every other aspect of our education system, I dont see why education should be free for everyone until Uni and then suddenly you have to pay or take on debt.

They could just raise taxes on the poor to pay for it. Taxing the rich is like government borrowing, theres only so far you can go until you break the camels back and tax revenue decreases.

In any case, loan repayment is for all intents and purposes a graduate tax.

But you do see how the NHS is free until you want a perscription? Or how NHS dentists charge?

The situation is a lot easier to understand now. Education/training to 18 is compulsary and is therefore free. Uni is elective so a contribution is asked for so the burden isn't disproportionately on those who didn't go to uni.

[Tithonius]

(Original post by MaxMaxMax)
None of those go anywhere nearer requiring full-blown degrees though lol

True. Don't forget the 'business' [physical shudder] of education though. I've been told in a Latin seminar that employers 'value and desire somebody with knowledge of Latin' What nonsense! I studied it because I enjoyed it. Does studying ancient texts give me skills which I can transfer to the modern world (even here on TSR?) Yes! of course they do - but nor directly. A photography degree might well give someone the same skills as a degree in business. Degrees are about self-discovery (nosce te ipsum if you will) and nurturing talent.

This is rather my point and it is one which I think your OP stimulates debate on. That is, what value does any education bring to a society?

[made_of_fail]

(Original post by MaxMaxMax)
Amidst all this media hype about student funding and tuition fees, there seems to be an elephant in the room which everyone ignores:

Give every student free tuition fees, but charge the students based on their intelligence, judged by their A Level grades and choice of Uni/subject. This way, clever students studying useful subjects at elite Universities would pay hardly anything for their degree, while mediocre students studying 'doss' subjects like photography and media studies at bad Universities would pay more, up to £10,000 a year. The government would basically be partially paying students' tuition fees, like a scholarship, with the amount depending on how productive and socially useful the degree is.

There are several advantages to this idea:

1) Students would be heavily incentivised to study hard and get into a good University, improving students' grades and making them smarter.

2) Clever students would benefit by going to a good University to study a useful, traditional academic subject such as Medicine, Law or Maths. These subjects are useful in business etc, and the country would get a lot out of these people. No-one is going to mind the taxpayer funding the creation of a new Doctor, for instance.

3) At the moment, because students realise that they will obviously need to a have a job after Uni unless they have a huge trustfund from Daddy, the only students who study 'doss' subjects are usually from rich families and only study those subjects with low future earnings potential because they simply do not need the money in future. This new idea would make them pay a high amount for their unproductive degrees. The reasoning is that there is nothing wrong with some rich kid 'studying' photography or David Beckham Studies for a laugh and to get the 'University Experience', but there is no reason the taxpayer should fund this waste. (I know far too many people from wealthy backgrounds studying Mickey Mouse degrees who openly admit that they only went to University for sthe partying, and don't even bother studying. Why on Earth should the government, i.e. the taxpayer, i.e. you, be funding their partying & socialising?) The rich kids themselves should pay for their doss degrees. This would make students think twice before applying to an unproductive degree at an awful University, and gradually these Mickey Mouse degrees would disappear and degrees would become much less undervalued.



Thoughts?

Firstly, you're obviously a little feeble minded yourself, so I commend you on your ability to put the general good above self interest.

Your proposal, however, is pretty retarded. It's the smartest who have an incentive to attend university and pick 'useful' degrees whatever the fee level.

A better and much more workable solution would be to simply abolish a whole tranche of pointless, mostly non vocational degrees offered at lesser insitutions. What's the point in an economics course where the average student has less than, say, BBB on entry? The content has to be scaled down to the point that it has little intellectual merit.

And it is of course nonsense that such degrees give students valuable transferrable skills. The only practical purpose of most degrees is as a signal to employers. If degrees are simply a costly signal, it's fair to say that most degrees are of dubious economic value, and that there are definitely some that should be cut.

[Quady]

(Original post by matt608)
Basicaly OPs idea is to making a sort of "Google algorithm". The problem is there are too many factors. For example, one factor is maintaining a tolerable level of inequality. If things become too unequal in a society, it breaks. If its people are spread too thinly over too much bread, it won't be a thriving... piece of toast. Then you have to work out how much of a factor University education is in the overall stability in society, and factor that in etc. It's just way too complicated!

Better to keep nice simple equality rights rather than switching to this Utilitarian ideal. However, some aspects can be used, such as shutting down funding for the worst Universities - effectivly cutting funding to the least intelligent students.

Agree with the first para but not the second.

If I make some assumptions about what you mean by 'worst', you'll half teacher training. Is that one of your objectives?

[Quady]

(Original post by Tithonius)
That is, what value does any education bring to a society?

None, unless its applied.

However, thats pretty much impossible to measure.

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by Quady)
They could just raise taxes on the poor to pay for it. Taxing the rich is like government borrowing, theres only so far you can go until you break the camels back and tax revenue decreases.

In any case, loan repayment is for all intents and purposes a graduate tax.

But you do see how the NHS is free until you want a perscription? Or how NHS dentists charge?

The situation is a lot easier to understand now. Education/training to 18 is compulsary and is therefore free. Uni is elective so a contribution is asked for so the burden isn't disproportionately on those who didn't go to uni.

taxing the rich more in a country where there taxes are relatively low or where they have too many exemptions makes perfect sense to raise money imo.

NHS underfunding is why they should have (as Labour wanted to) raised National Insurance, they could again also raise other taxes or reallocate funding from less important things like the Afghanistan War or Trident.

people should be able to go to Uni if they want, they shouldnt be laden with debt for doing so, it seems very unfair imo, surely having more people go to Uni can only be good for the country?