Instead of raising the cost of everyone’s degree, why don’t we concentrate on subsidising degrees which actually have some sort of relevance and use? The reason the budget is so ****** is because the taxpayer basically wrote a blank cheque to young people and promised that whatever nonsense they wanted to study would be paid for. No, my solution is much more subtle. The taxpayer should concentrate on paying for those degrees which disproportionately benefit “society”. Anything else would be down to individual decisions.So simple. It recognises that there is a benefit to us all from the study of the proper academic subjects - physics, medicine, english, languages, history, chemistry. These graduates go out into the world and either enrich our lives artistically or help our economy move forward, generating jobs, income for all, and tax revenue.
Nevertheless, if someone wants to study Golf Course Management, then they would be free to do so if they thought that the cost was worthwhile.
This is exactly what I have been thinking for the last week or so, wondering why the Coalition cannot do this. It works, it is sensible, and it would save Nick Clegg's postbox from all sorts of abuse. Clegg even said in an interview (apologies, can't remember where) "We could of course just cut down the nuber of courses that are funded" in a way that suggested a "but that would mean..." was following, but no disastrous scenario followed. I was left thinking "Yes, you could. Why not?".
I especially like this idea:
Anything with the word “science” in the name would be out
Wow, Clegg is a moron, isn't he?!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link :-D
I see him more as an excellent opportunist.
ReplyDeleteMind you, he "only" went to Robinson.
Vulgar, statist utilitarianism.
ReplyDeleteWho is going to decide what is "of relevance and use"? What basis would they have for such a judgment? Surely, it would have to be done philosophically, but I don't see philosophy in your list of state approved subjects. The underlying philsophical assumption is wholly materialistic, it seems to me. What about the things that make life worth living? It's not all numbers and money. And how is society going to decide how to spend its money, it's morally illiterate enough as it is.
Karl Marx would be proud of this proposal.
Philosophy is a "proper" subject.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the things that make life worth living?
You'll see that I included English and languages. Generally, the arts, theology, philosophy and the like should be included. They enrich our lives, and it is worthwhile to fund these graduates from the public purse - not from the materialistic financial perspective that justifies funding degrees such as mine in the light of future tax revenues, but from the perspective that they make our country a place that is worth living in.
This is anything but a "wholly materialistic" proposal. Read it first, before you jerk your knee.
Vulgar, statist utilitarianism.... Karl Marx would be proud of this proposal.
Utter rubbish. We already decide whether or not to use public money to fund research institutes, theatres, art galleries, and so on. This would involve exactly analogous questions. We do this all the time, and would simply be extending it to another area of public spending instead of continuing the "blank cheque" approach that is currently being abused.
It would focus a spotlight on the academic content of courses and the quality of teaching provided. If both were above a threshold then the course would have funding. If not, it would be for the College concerned to persuade potential students that the course was worth the money.
It is a constructive approach to finding universities that both maintains standards and helps all students to further their education regardless of their income. You dismiss it with insults. I am not persuaded.
Albert, the only logical conclusion to your argument is that the state should pay for no education at all, because that is the only way that the state would be able to not "decide".
ReplyDeleteI did read the post, and I also read BE's. I simply do not think that your rather broad definition of useful subjects fits the direction of the logic of either post, and especially not BE's which you are endorsing.
ReplyDeleteThere are two problems:
(i) If you have such a wide list of subjects - Philosophy, Theology, the arts etc. you will not save much money. I have never heard of anyone going to study Golf Course Management. All the young people I have ever spent time with (and as someone who has always worked either in or with schools, I have worked with a lot of young people) have always gone on to study "proper" subjects. Obviously, someone out there must be doing David Beckham studies, but will you really save all that money by cutting back on those subjects?
(ii) With the possible exception of History, your list is of subjects that have use in the market place. Had you included more generally "the arts, Theology and Philosophy, the whole post would have looked different (but the contradiction indicated in (i) would have been all the more glaring).
(iii) You are endorsing BE's post. But his list includes "subjects such as chemistry, engineering, medicine". No arts in there. Neither is it likely that he wants them in. He says "even the Law might be in" - amazing, to doubt that a society should fund the study of its own law! I ask you! Looks pretty materialistic to me. I don't think BEs has it in mind that Theology should be taught, do you?
(Though of course, in the most amusing bit BEs goes on to say. "Anything with the word “science” in the name would be out". Well that would mean Material Sciences ;-) would be out, so perhaps BEs isn't so materialistic after all!)
Accordingly, what I wrote was not utter rubbish, nor a knee jerk reaction. It was directed against what now seems to be only one horn of the paradox of your post and the sheer oddness of BE's original - which you endorsed without clarifying where you differ.
Albert, the only logical conclusion to your argument is that the state should pay for no education at all, because that is the only way that the state would be able to not "decide".
ReplyDeleteNo BE, far from being the only logical conclusion that isn't even a logical conclusion to my argument.
I was objecting to the fact that you seemed to be excluding arts subjects like Philosophy, but then expecting to make philosophical judgment about value.
You have not found a paradox, you have found a practical problem - that of setting the appropriate academic level for a course to be funded, and monitoring this.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that such assessments are made day-in, day-out. So there is no problem, and certainly no paradox. Perhaps you are taking too philosophical an approach, Albert?
Essentially, the problem is that we can't afford all these students. This follows a decade in which the number of students has more than doubled. There is a rather obvious solution staring us in the face there, I think?
(Point taken re Materials Science - I tend to think of it as Metallurgy. But it is amusing enough to justify running with it)
PS Blue - Sorry, I've done it again, haven't I - link to one of your posts and then get more comments here!
I suspect we are largely agreed on this. There are too many students and the public purse is funding "joke subjects". What I am objecting to is the feeling I have (more strongly with BE than you) that the cut back should be done ideologically. I say, it should be done academically. Get rid of non academic subjects, and get rid of non academic students.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that you need a degree to contribute to society is frankly stupid. Perhaps it brings the unemployment figures down, but apart from that party political benefit, everyone would be a whole lot better off if, instead of funding joke subjects and non academic students we got them to start making a proper contibution to society earlier. Now that proposal would make a financial difference.
If we are cutting back on non academic students, I suggest we start by cutting the morons who spent yesterday afternoon fighting the police - such persons are clearly too stupid to be worth teaching (they are also likely to be more hard left (which may be the same thing) so that is a another benefit!).
Patently, don't worry, I prefer not to have people who think they know what is inside my head better than I do cluttering up my site.
ReplyDeleteAlbert, the bit about the law "might" be in was a joke. Sorry if it wasn't obvious at first glance. I can't quite work out what you would prefer to see instead of my proposal. Care to explain?
"What I am objecting to is the feeling ... that the cut back should be done ideologically"
ReplyDelete???
Sorry, did you want me to write an exhaustive list of subjects that I would keep and those which I would bin? Seriously? I'll be back in a few weeks once I have gone through all the prospectuses. Stand by.
"I have never heard of anyone going to study Golf Course Management"
ReplyDeleteOh well if *you* haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist!
Get rid of non academic subjects, and get rid of non academic students.
ReplyDeleteThan we are in complete agreement. So stop arguing with me and admit I'm right.
Go on. You know you want to.
I can't quite work out what you would prefer to see instead of my proposal. Care to explain?
ReplyDeleteI hope I have done that more than adequately at 11.34.
Sorry, did you want me to write an exhaustive list of subjects that I would keep and those which I would bin? Seriously? I'll be back in a few weeks once I have gone through all the prospectuses. Stand by.
I was making a judgment on the basis of the general principles you were laying out: "relevance and use" supported by the actual examples given "chemistry, engineering, medicine" - all sciences. (If I cannot make a judgment from your general principles and the actual examples, it is difficult to see what content you are communicating.) In this context, your joke about the law is less than obvious, because it does not fit into the category of the other subjects endorsed.
Oh well if *you* haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist!
The idea that such subjects do not exist cannot even be entailed from what I wrote and is contradicted by my reference to David Beckham studies. My point was that the proportion of students studying such things would seem to be sufficiently small that it wouldn't make enough financial difference. But if you've costed it, then let's see the figures.
Here's the problem your argument faces:
(i) If you cut only joke subjects you will not save much money (and the saving of money was the main point of the post, I thought).
(ii) If you cut more than joke subjects, you might save enough money, but what would be the basis on which you cut? Ideology, not academic.
Let's see where you stand. Here are some subjects Patently has agreed to: physics, medicine, english, languages, history, chemistry, the arts, theology and philosophy. Do accept everything on that list?
Than we are in complete agreement. So stop arguing with me and admit I'm right.
ReplyDeleteGo on. You know you want to.
If you agree with me, of course you are right.
I was making a judgment...
ReplyDeleteTake care, Albert. Blogposts are not manifestos; part of their value is that they can be written quickly and published immediately. Just because it does not stand up to a subsequent meticulous verbal analysis is not per se a ground to challenge it.
By all means debate the issue, but stick to the issue rather than alleged deficiencies in the manner of its expression.
Just saying.
Blogposts are not manifestos
ReplyDeleteThat is a fair point, and I apologise to BE if I have misinterpreted him (as I clearly did with regard to the law at least). On the other hand, communication of ideas requires some kind of judgment and there must be sufficient clarity for that to occur. At the moment, I am still unclear as to what BE was actually saying. Is he for cutting joke subjects only (in which case how will he save sufficient money) or is he for cutting academic subjects like Theology on the basis of ideology?
Patently, thank you for understanding my post. Albert, sorry if I didn't spend hours exhaustively listing the subjects that I would subsidise or not. If it's any consolation to you whatsoever I am not and will never be in a position to implement my idea so you can sleep sound.
ReplyDeleteAs I see the idea, it is to cut joke subjects, and inadequately taught subjects.
ReplyDeleteI suspect, but cannot prove, that this would be sufficient.
BE I have never asked for an exhaustive list, merely an indication of the kinds of subjects that you might permit. The list Patently has agreed with would be sufficient: physics, medicine, english, languages, history, chemistry, the arts, theology and philosophy. But you haven't commneted on them. I can only wonder why. Either you are ideologically assaulting subjects I hold dear (while expecting my taxes to be taken from me to spent on what you think is important) or you are not. I cannot see why you don't want to answer.
ReplyDeleteI suspect, but cannot prove, that this would be sufficient.
Sufficient for what? Save enough money from the education budget?
Tsk.
ReplyDeleteTuition Fees - *a hard lesson*
Even if the three of you could agree what was in and what was out, you have failed to recognise and resolve the inherent structural difficulties in the system.
All courses have to be accredited and should be subject to some form of moderation. As I see it,
1. The inspection system is lacking as it is if we are nice about you, you will be nice about me.
2. Since courses now consist of modules, additional courses of all ilks can be created and this to some extent fails to cater for the different standards so for example, psychology (or is it behavioural science?) requires a less demanding course of mathematics (or is it quantitative science?) than economics, yet in this cost effective modular structure, teaching is reduced to the lowest common denominator so everyone can keep up.
3. Universities want to maximise their number of students, which is perfectly understandable given economies of scale and the central allocation of capital investment.
So, the only way to sort the system out is to make it demand led. This does save on the funding costs of your committees squabbling. It will quickly expose more than useless courses that provide no job prospects. The drawback is that it is another tax on the middle classes. I have two children so it is effectively a tax of £60,000 net at today's rate, a level I hasten to add it will not stay at. You can bleat this is the child's debt and all the rest, but of course you will help your children set up a home and of course you want them to go to university. I get penalised because I saved money for ten years while all those around me indulged in excess. ::[not happy]::
However, I do think it is fairer on those who have not and will not go to university. Natural selection should ensure that Patently's preference for proper academic subjects will flourish. I would include philosophy as a proper academic subject, a discipline no less if it is well taught, but let those to be directly affected decide.
I know.
ReplyDeleteWe just have to set it as a question in the finals Philosophy exam: "It is straightforward to distinguish an academic subject from a non-academic subject - discuss".
Then we see if what comes back solves the problem for us.
M - what you've established is that we already have a structure for assessing this, but it doesn't work well enough. Time, then, for Ministers to earn their salary & sort it out?
An academic answer will come back to that the question. In my mind it is academic since it will not solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe structure is fatally flawed and Ministers are sorting it out, and their finances to boot, by outsourcing the problem. Anyway politicians are politicians, aren't they? It is a shrewd move by them, but it is not good for me or you. I love the timing. The civil servants have got this long delay before implementing drip drip drip proposals down to a fine art. VAT goes up in January. Why aren't we rioting?
Measured,
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I'm not so interested in the question of what is or is not academic. I am worried by any suggestion that the matter should be decided in a high-handed statist way according to ideology. The problem is that if we only keep academic subjects I don't expect we save enough money. The solution seems to me to send fewer people to university, and ensure that those who do go get the best possible education.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in your solution and that is what will occur, although not as quickly as one might wish for. Graduates who have not received value for money will complain and competition between universities will rise leading to higher standards. One glitch is that the supply of academic subjects may rise as the number of mickey mouse subjects declines, leading to a bottleneck at the job application phase. Pure capitalism. Discuss. :-)
The solution seems to me to send fewer people to university, and ensure that those who do go get the best possible education.
ReplyDeleteHow?
In the patent profession, we object to ideas that are present with a non-enabling disclosure...
How?
ReplyDeleteCut down on the number of places and then all the money can be spent on fewer students. Granted, this does not ensure there will be a better education for those who recieve it, but at least it removes the drain of resources from academia to joke subjects and weak students.
In the patent profession, we object to ideas that are present with a non-enabling disclosure...
In non patent professions we wonder what on earth that means...
Cut down the number of places?! But then we would have to choose which subjects those places would be for, and who would occupy them? That sounds horribly high-handed, statist, and - quite possibly - ideological?
ReplyDeleteNon-enablement is quite a simple concept. Let's say you had the idea of a machine that manufactured beer without incurring any capital or running costs. That would, obviously, be a desirable item, for it would allow us to create free beer.
However, the problem in that invention lies not in its conception but in its implementation. Specifically, what we need to know is how to do it, not what to aim for. A patent application which claimed "A method of producing beer, in which the beer is produced without cost" would be objected to that the claim was not enabled.
Hence my question: "How?" :-)
But then we would have to choose which subjects those places would be for, and who would occupy them? That sounds horribly high-handed, statist, and - quite possibly - ideological?
ReplyDeleteIf deciding which subjects are academic and which are not is ideological then it would be ideological, but I find that an odd description. Besides, we are all agreed that we should only pay for academic subjects. As for who should occupy these places, how about giving them out on the basis of academic merit. We could have high quality examinations in the final year of school which would really separate out the clever from the non-clever. Strange it doesn't happen already, really.
High quality exams? But that would be unfair! Some people would feel that they had lost out if they only received an E, or (heaven forbid) a U. No, we must be progressive, and give them all an A.
ReplyDelete;-)