To be honest I don't really think it needs any more explanation. But here we go.
1. The idea that you should tie degree worth to 'earning potential' doesn't sit well with me.
I disagree that worth is linked to salary because social utility is not linked to salary.
2. Many people who study degrees that you consider worthless go on to make a lot of money and aide the economy. You would discourage this from happening.
3. Conversely, you would give an advantage to those who do your worthy degrees but who have no hope of gainful employment.
4. You would create an artificial market where there were a disproportionate number of students doing your worthy jobs.
Over time this over supply would effect grad prospects and salaries. Would you change your model to reduce the financial package available?
If so, you model is self defeating.
If you would not, your model is logically fallacious.
5. A large majority of graduates do not work in the area that their degree is in. This is how it has always been. I don't see how you can calculate a true 'average salary' when each case is different without sledgehammering where a tooth pick is needed.
6. I suspect that your measure would indirectly discriminate against women who are statistically less likely to do engineering studies and statistically more likely to do arts.
Good luck getting that past equality legislation.
7. I suspect the subjects you consider less worthy are cheaper for universities to run. They do, therefore, subsidise more expensive courses (as they are charged the same).
If less people were to stop doing these courses, the funding for sciences and complex engineering would be more limited. The courses would become more expensive (defeating your objective re giving those students economic advantage) or they would become unsustainable.
8. The fact that you are so happy to make public service exceptions is an indication that hadn't thought it through.
9. Some of the most influential people in public life (politicians/lawyers) studied degrees your model might find has 'poorer' employment prospects (history, philosophy, law, psychology). Your plan would restrict social mobility in relation to these subjects. The resulting effect on social mobility in these key public areas would not be desirable.
10. If your model is based on earning potential in subject area, then it doesn't account for employment prospects of various universities. This is logically flawed.
In the alternative, if it did take account of university attended then it would be very dangerous for the sustainability of those courses and institutions.
You should not overlook the massive boost universities give to their local area courtesy of the people they employ and the money the students spend.
Summary:
-too many important variables your catch all policy would ignore
-efforts to catch all variables would be confusing, expensive, and logically self defeating
-you haven't really thought it through.
-apologies for typos. I'm in a rush.
Posted from TSR MobilePosted from TSR Mobile