Turn on thread page Beta

Education for profit. Good or bad? Why? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Many people dislike the idea of education-for-profit and think that it is wrong for people to profit from providing education. Within that group, virtually nobody thinks it is wrong to profit from providing food-for-profit, transport-for-profit or books-for-profit.

    What do you think? And why do you think about education this way?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Do people not understand that it's possible to have two motives for doing something? This is just a communist mentality you speak of OP. If you can provide good education and make money then good luck to you
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's not really the profit aspect that is what characterises independent schooling (most of them are non-profit schools) but rather independence from the state system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    It's not really the profit aspect that is what characterises independent schooling (most of them are non-profit schools) but rather independence from the state system.
    Actually, most independent schools are charities. What I was thinking of more is that there seems to be a strong distaste for companies making money out of education. e.g the idea of private companies operating academies, private schools or universities being run on a for-profit basis, companies like Pearson making money out of running exams etc.

    I was doing some research on revision products and while looking at apps for revision was surprised to find quite widespread complaints from presumably fairly intelligent students who strongly felt that it was wrong to charge £1-2 per subject to supply revision guides / question papers etc. I thought it was pretty weird to be prepared to spend hours revising but to think that spending a few quid to help it was unreasonable.

    What do you think?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well look at it like this. If you outsource state education to private organizations they will gorge themselves since they are in the business of making money. Costs the tax payer more.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There are things like this like Caribbean MD schools. I don't see whats wrong with our current system, why fix it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okorange)
    There are things like this like Caribbean MD schools. I don't see whats wrong with our current system, why fix it?
    A lot of people think there is serious inequality of opportunity for children. Some have the opportunity of an extremely good state or independent education, others seem to be stuck with no option other than a poor state education.
    It's clear that the state education system provides very unequal outcomes. Evidently, the state is unable to address this problem, so what can the private sector do to provide better, or to help?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Look into the following:

    University of Phoenix
    ITT Tech
    The rest of the ****ty for profit schools in Murica

    In the UK there is the likes of LSBF...

    Then tell me how "for-profit" education is a good idea.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    Do people not understand that it's possible to have two motives for doing something? This is just a communist mentality you speak of OP. If you can provide good education and make money then good luck to you
    Thinking that you should have a somewhat mixed economy with services such as the NHS and education not having a profit motive coexisting with capitalist markets of some sort does not make you a communists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Who is responsible for administration? That will determine if it is good or bad. I see no difficulty in making a profit, if that profit is put back into the facilities it will be useful instead of relying on government grants all of the time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Thinking that you should have a somewhat mixed economy with services such as the NHS and education not having a profit motive coexisting with capitalist markets of some sort does not make you a communists.
    That wasn't what OP was talking about specifically. And I am in favour of health care being delivered by a mixture of the private and charitable sectors as in most other European countries, the NHS shouldn't exist
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.L)
    A lot of people think there is serious inequality of opportunity for children. Some have the opportunity of an extremely good state or independent education, others seem to be stuck with no option other than a poor state education.
    It's clear that the state education system provides very unequal outcomes. Evidently, the state is unable to address this problem, so what can the private sector do to provide better, or to help?
    Independent schools offer bursaries and scholarships. If someone really wants to go to an independent school, but doesn't have the money to pay for it, the school can pay their fees for them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Independent schools offer bursaries and scholarships. If someone really wants to go to an independent school, but doesn't have the money to pay for it, the school can pay their fees for them.
    I doubt they would be able to cope if every kid went to an independent school.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    I doubt they would be able to cope if every kid went to an independent school.
    Obviously they wouldn't be able to cope, but at least they make their education available to people who would not normally be able to afford it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Obviously they wouldn't be able to cope, but at least they make their education available to people who would not normally be able to afford it.
    I am going to be really annoying and say that the specifically "make their education available to some people who would not normally be able to afford it" rather than "ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it". It's like university education. It only works when few do it, when everybody goes for it, it worsens. Just imagine if we had a significant East Asian population like they do in America. They would outrank most non-East Asian in a few years.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    That wasn't what OP was talking about specifically. And I am in favour of health care being delivered by a mixture of the private and charitable sectors as in most other European countries, the NHS shouldn't exist
    SO why did you bring it up then?

    I think it;s perfectly fine, or even preferable to think schools and healthcare shouldn't have profit motives driving them. I also think that profit motive can get in the way of what you are supposed to providing.

    That doesn't mean I am a communist. Whatever that is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    I am going to be really annoying and say that the specifically "make their education available to some people who would not normally be able to afford it" rather than "ALL people who would not normally be able to afford it". It's like university education. It only works when few do it, when everybody goes for it, it worsens. Just imagine if we had a significant East Asian population like they do in America. They would outrank most non-East Asian in a few years.
    Why would you say "some people" instead of "all people"?

    I'm not quite sure why you are using university education as a comparison, because everyone can afford to attend university.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    SO why did you bring it up then?

    I think it;s perfectly fine, or even preferable to think schools and healthcare shouldn't have profit motives driving them. I also think that profit motive can get in the way of what you are supposed to providing.

    That doesn't mean I am a communist. Whatever that is.
    Why should it get in the way of it, it doesn't on the continent? I'm not really interested whether you think it's 'fine' or not, the NHS is a lethal monstrosity
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think one can object to privatising higher education on three grounds: (i) for its effect on entry; (ii) for its effect on educational focus; (iii) for its effect on education quality. The debate often begins and ends with (i), namely, that education is so important and public a good, and its limitation to the wealthy so effective in reproducing inequality, that it should be open to all meeting some minimal threshold of merit. I think (ii) is also very important. By which I mean the commercialisation of higher education. If people have to pay a great deal of money for entry, over the long run they will come to treat the experience not as one of self-enlightenment, but of investment in one's market value. Or at least the latter will increase over the former. The original idea of the modern university - of being a better, more enlightened and engaged person for it - is thusly supplanted by a terrible instrumentalism. As much is evident from these boards when people speak of an implicit course hierarchy according to average graduating salary. STEM and those courses which might provide a platform to working in financial services are now generally presumed to be 'better'. As that expectation grows, so universities cater their courses, careers services and facilities to graduate employment, and so advertisement and careers promotion grows on campuses. Perhaps (iii) partly owes itself to (ii), but I'm sure profiteering *may* encourage practices detrimental to education, certainly for those with less money, as is reason of (i). A.C. Grayling's New College of the Humanities - a private university whose entry costs £18,000 per year - is hardly a shining example, i.e. hiring big-name faculty with which to advertise itself, but who are present at the university a fortnight every year, or something of that order.

    (Original post by Gott)
    That wasn't what OP was talking about specifically. And I am in favour of health care being delivered by a mixture of the private and charitable sectors as in most other European countries, the NHS shouldn't exist
    Why? It provides better healthcare per-pound than its European competitors, and its distribution is equalised such as not to peg the basis of life to one's market value.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    I think one can object to privatising higher education on three grounds: (i) for its effect on entry; (ii) for its effect on educational focus; (iii) for its effect on education quality. The debate often begins and ends with (i), namely, that education is so important and public a good, and its limitation to the wealthy so effective in reproducing inequality, that it should be open to all meeting some minimal threshold of merit. I think (ii) is also very important. By which I mean the commercialisation of higher education. If people have to pay a great deal of money for entry, over the long run they will come to treat the experience not as one of self-enlightenment, but of investment in one's market value. Or at least the latter will increase over the former. The original idea of the modern university - of being a better, more enlightened and engaged person for it - is thusly supplanted by a terrible instrumentalism. As much is evident from these boards when people speak of an implicit course hierarchy according to average graduating salary. STEM and those courses which might provide a platform to working in financial services are now generally presumed to be 'better'. As that expectation grows, so universities cater their courses, careers services and facilities to graduate employment, and so advertisement and careers promotion grows on campuses. Perhaps (iii) partly owes itself to (ii), but I'm sure profiteering *may* encourage practices detrimental to education, certainly for those with less money, as is reason of (i). A.C. Grayling's New College of the Humanities - a private university whose entry costs £18,000 per year - is hardly a shining example, i.e. hiring big-name faculty with which to advertise itself, but who are present at the university a fortnight every year, or something of that order.



    Why? It provides better healthcare per-pound than its European competitors, and its distribution is equalised such as not to peg the basis of life to one's market value.
    Evidence?

    That sounds like lefty BS to me and its hardly relevant to the overall effectiveness of the system

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...alth-care.html
 
 
 

3,494

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.