Funding of higher education

[Jimmy Jimson]

Given the underfunding of Scottish universities, which will have to be dealt with in the next decade, and the (in my opinion largeyy justified) public opposition to top-up fees and other means of paying, what about the following suggestion by Ben Reilly of St Andrew's University:

 

Each student pledges a small proportion (1 or 2 per cent) of their future earnings to their university, which could borrow against the income stream to generate current funds. Universities would be rewarded for the quality of their teaching, since it would affect graduate salaries and, therefore, their income.

----------------------------------------------

I don't claim to be an expert, but this strikes me as a highly logical suggestion and definitely worth further investigation...

[peeriebryan]

That's quite an interesting idea. I'm gonna look into that. Have you got any links Jimmy?

[Jimmy Jimson]

That's quite an interesting idea. I'm gonna look into that. Have you got any links Jimmy?

 

From the Scotland on Sunday (best I could do, I'm afraid!):

http://news.scotsman.com/education.cfm?id=184032006

 

University alternative to top-up fees

ARTHUR MACMILLAN EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT (amacmillan@scotlandonsunday.com)

 

SCOTTISH students should pay money directly to their university instead of a graduate tax to government when they start work, a new study claims.

 

Higher education bosses claim that top-up fees in England will leave them with less money and unable to maintain quality, leading to a brain drain from Scotland.

 

But the Policy Institute, an independent think-tank, has suggested that universities north of the Border should borrow against students' future income to raise immediate funds to maintain teaching quality and resources.

 

A research paper, sent to 1,200 readers in the political, business, media and academic worlds last week, says that tuition fees are misconceived because they reward universities' past reputation and can deter poorer students.

 

The report states: "Universities would be directly rewarded for improvement in the quality of their teaching, since it would result in higher graduate salaries and higher income.

 

"Students would have no fear of debt and government would make major savings."

 

The author of the report, Ben Reilly of St Andrews University, suggests that about two per cent of graduates earnings would be needed.

 

Reilly said: "If the Scottish Executive decided to fund all of the Scottish universities at a level commensurate with the leading international institutions, it would cost billions extra a year."

 

Frank Gribben, registrar of Edinburgh University's College of Humanities and Social Science, said: "Although in the short term we've got a reasonable settlement from the Executive, there is concern over how sustainable that will be in the medium term if the larger contribution from graduates in England gives extra income that cannot be matched."

---------

I'm guessing you could get the full report somewhere online also.

[Njugle]

Two irons to throw into this fire

 

1) Not all graduate courses lead to gainful employment. As a sociological argument does this mean that education should cease for those not pursuing a career degree? Or if a graduate becomes an unskilled employee are they still liable for the contributory funding?

 

2) Should funding be targetted at courses in which there is a skills shortage in the UK (eg., medicine, dentists eenoo, (plumbers?))

 

 

These two points are, perhaps, contradictory but it is a many facetted subject.

[Jimmy Jimson]

Two irons to throw into this fire

 

1) Not all graduate courses lead to gainful employment. As a sociological argument does this mean that education should cease for those not pursuing a career degree? Or if a graduate becomes an unskilled employee are they still liable for the contributory funding?

 

2) Should funding be targetted at courses in which there is a skills shortage in the UK (eg., medicine, dentists eenoo, (plumbers?))

 

These two points are, perhaps, contradictory but it is a many facetted subject.

 

Perhaps contradictory, but unlike Tony Blair et al I would argue that there is an intrinsic value in further education in itself, as opposed to merely as a means to finding a trade. Though obviously re: 2) it is only sensible to target funding at things like the NHS, which will be to the benefit of all.

[Ben Reilly]

Hi,

 

A Google Alert threw up this, and I'd be delighted to answer any questions people have.

 

To answer the points that have been raised so far:

 

Not all graduate courses lead to gainful employment. As a sociological argument does this mean that education should cease for those not pursuing a career degree? Or if a graduate becomes an unskilled employee are they still liable for the contributory funding?

 

By your first point here do you mean those who are not pursuing vocational degrees? As to the second point, yes, I do think they would be liable. I would say that this system would mean that universities would have an incentive to provide life-long training and support for their graduates.

 

 

2) Should funding be targetted at courses in which there is a skills shortage in the UK (eg., medicine, dentists eenoo, (plumbers?))

 

That is what this would do. By definition in an open (ish) economy, as there is a skills shortage, the wage rises. Therefore universities would have an incentive to provide the skills needed. This obviously would-not work where there is a single employer, such as the NHS. For those, the single employer would probably offer to give money to the universities if they provided graduates who were suitably qualified.

 

Perhaps contradictory, but unlike Tony Blair et al I would argue that there is an intrinsic value in further education in itself, as opposed to merely as a means to finding a trade.

I find this very difficult, because I too believe that there is an intrinsic value in having a well-educated civic society. Fortunately, I don't see any contradiction.

 

The full paper is available at http://www.policyinstitute.info/AllPDFs/ReillyFeb06.pdf