That's already happening in the U.S. - State schools are heavily subsidized by taxes. I went to one which was (and still is) relatively inexpensive for in-state students and delivered fantastic value for what I paid.
Saying "universities should be free" and that it should be paid for "by taxes" without being more specific about which universities and what taxes paid for by which specific people doesn't really add anything.
Which universities? All that gets anything from the state (like subsidies, etc)
Which people? Everybody that can pay for it. It should come out of the state budget. I.e. the same people who pays for the military, the roads, the politician's salaries.
Those subsidies have gone way, way down since at least 2008, for quite a few states. That's part of the reason tuition has been skyrocketing, to make up for the reduced subsidies. At one school that I know someone who works on the staff, the state was perpetually six months behind where it was supposed to be for payments and they had to go through a 40% reduction in their subsidy.
Everyone. Other people's education is a form of infrastructure. Everyone benefits from living in an educated society so everyone should pay for it via taxes.
But of course this is completely unrealistic in the US where even socialised healthcare is looked upon as bordering on communism.
"these schools spend considerably more than $100,000 a year educating each student"
Averaged over 30 weeks, that's $3.3k. I could pay a private tutor $100 per hour ($150 including payroll taxes and benefits) for 20 hours per week and still pay less than $100k per year.
My University has five floors of library and a multi million pound budget that includes student access to online electronic versions of books and journals.
It also hosts regular events and guest speakers.
It organises paid industrial placements for students, foriegn exchange programmes at no extra cost, it's own concert hall, a super-computer and, until he stepped down this year, you got your degree handed to you by Sir Patrick Stewart (Capt. Picard) but for my graduation I will have to make do with Prince Andrew.
Yes, economies of scale are a thing. They generally cause average cost per unit of output to decrease, as total output increases.
As I said, for the $100k/pa cost quoted by the article, a single student could afford to pay for pay+tax+benefits for a 1:1 tutor, 20 hours per week.
Given that most university lectures/seminars/tutorials have a much larger student:teacher ratio, economies of scale should mean universities would achieve a much lower cost of tuition.
I get that universities do other things. I get that they need to build and maintain infrastructure. I get that they need to subscribe to journals. But all of that is spread over all of their students.
Regarding the example you introduced: The University of Huddersfield has ~20k students. Its total expenditure is ~120m GBP ($180MM) per year[0]. That's about $9k per student per year. That's less than 1/10th of the $100k expenditure per student quoted in the original article.
And my fees are $14k per annum. My debt will be about $70k upon graduation (living expenses etc.).
For three years of existence, I think that's pretty reasonable. I finished my first year with $1500 still in the bank and I lived in expensive accommodation.
Huddersfield is building a new $40m law school this year. It recently built a $20m business school and is debt free.
But my real point was that one-to-one tutoring is not the same as attending classes.
Since 1987, higher education institutions have doubled the ratio of nonacademic employees to faculty. There are now two nonacademic employees at public and two and a half at private universities and colleges for every one full-time, tenure-track member of the faculty.
Yet, the universities are pumping out roughly the same number of graduates.
Why such high growth in administrators? Is our education now better than 1987? How come every other industry is cutting costs, while higher education is increasing costs and beaurocracy?
It is interesting how produce-nothing bureaucrats always manage to multiply like insects. The same pattern applies to the government, health care, etc. That's why we urgently need to go back to free (or as close to free as possible) markets - to keep this scum in check.
And no, higher education is not a free market, despite appearances.
19 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 49.9 ms ] threadSo in your opinion who should that be?
It's also a good way to take advantage of all potential instead of only the ones that happen to have money.
Saying "universities should be free" and that it should be paid for "by taxes" without being more specific about which universities and what taxes paid for by which specific people doesn't really add anything.
Which people? Everybody that can pay for it. It should come out of the state budget. I.e. the same people who pays for the military, the roads, the politician's salaries.
In Illinois, they even proposed a bill to privatize their public schools this year. I don't think it passed, but the fact that it was even proposed says something. Source: http://www.dailyeasternnews.com/2015/03/24/senator-proposes-...
But of course this is completely unrealistic in the US where even socialised healthcare is looked upon as bordering on communism.
Averaged over 30 weeks, that's $3.3k. I could pay a private tutor $100 per hour ($150 including payroll taxes and benefits) for 20 hours per week and still pay less than $100k per year.
It also hosts regular events and guest speakers.
It organises paid industrial placements for students, foriegn exchange programmes at no extra cost, it's own concert hall, a super-computer and, until he stepped down this year, you got your degree handed to you by Sir Patrick Stewart (Capt. Picard) but for my graduation I will have to make do with Prince Andrew.
There are more benefits my tution goes toward.
Economies of scale are a thing.
Yes, economies of scale are a thing. They generally cause average cost per unit of output to decrease, as total output increases.
As I said, for the $100k/pa cost quoted by the article, a single student could afford to pay for pay+tax+benefits for a 1:1 tutor, 20 hours per week.
Given that most university lectures/seminars/tutorials have a much larger student:teacher ratio, economies of scale should mean universities would achieve a much lower cost of tuition.
I get that universities do other things. I get that they need to build and maintain infrastructure. I get that they need to subscribe to journals. But all of that is spread over all of their students.
Regarding the example you introduced: The University of Huddersfield has ~20k students. Its total expenditure is ~120m GBP ($180MM) per year[0]. That's about $9k per student per year. That's less than 1/10th of the $100k expenditure per student quoted in the original article.
[0] http://www.hud.ac.uk/media/universityofhuddersfield/content2...
For three years of existence, I think that's pretty reasonable. I finished my first year with $1500 still in the bank and I lived in expensive accommodation.
Huddersfield is building a new $40m law school this year. It recently built a $20m business school and is debt free.
But my real point was that one-to-one tutoring is not the same as attending classes.
Yet, the universities are pumping out roughly the same number of graduates.
Why such high growth in administrators? Is our education now better than 1987? How come every other industry is cutting costs, while higher education is increasing costs and beaurocracy?
And no, higher education is not a free market, despite appearances.