Are you assuming that higher education is a transfer to the poor?
In developed countries this is not the case. University enrolments are dominated by the middle class. Effectively it is a wealth transfer from the poor to the decently well-off. Or, looked at another way, a transfer to the student from their future selves.
If you take the last point of view, income-contingent loan schemes (like Australia's) are a reasonably sensible way to fund university education.
I agree. Which is why I think higher tuition fees -- or, in other words, and end to subsidized postsecondary education -- is a good idea. Remember, those who don't have are the ~50% of the population who don't go to postsecondary education.
(And don't try to claim that this is because they can't afford the associated costs; studies have repeatedly found that the costs of higher education are a very very minor factor in determining students' postsecondary attendance. The largest determining factor, by far, is the educational qualifications of students' parents.)
Now you see, I am Canadian. So I could walk in to half the threads on this site and say "I really don't understand this sense of moral superiority these American chaps seem to have," which would be a perfectly stereotypical action from a Canadian, and would, additionally, be mindless flamebait that contributes nothing to the site or the discussion.
Your comment is no different.
What's more, your account was created roughly 10 minutes before you left this comment. Really? If you are an old user using it as a sock puppet, your fear of expressing even mainstream opinions is clearly crippling you. If, on the other hand, you are a user new to this site, there are infinitely better ways of contributing to it than unintelligent, unfunny snark about how European kids these days blah blah blah entitled.
Well in this case I'm talking generally, it's not just an 'unfunny snark' about European kids.
There was also all that protesting and rioting in France a little while ago because the retirement age was being changed from 60 to 62. Seriously.
I just find it totally flabbergasting that people would choose retiring 2 years earlier over having your nation turn into a bankrupt and failed state. This type of thinking is just totally foreign to me.
And that was my first comment on this site, by the way.
It is one thing to express an opinion in a peaceful manner, and a completely different thing to threaten and physically attack people. Intellectual battles are fought by persuasion, not physical force. Disagreeing with a government action that does not threaten you physically is not a justification for hurting people and destroying their property.
The above is the main premise in this discussion. Next comes the entitlement argument. The UK government is not introducing a new policy, rather it is scaling back on an old one, restricting its involvement in education. It is sensible to bring back more freedom in education, where prices, just like in every other market within a free uncontrolled economy, should reflect fundamental value.
Obviously, the government has to be careful not to withdraw its support too quickly. After all, its involvement has distorted incentives in education to such an extent that withdrawing substantial funds too fast can cause a major economic upheaval. From what I know about the issue, this is not the case. I hope this is a gradual change in the right direction.
The best the students can do is re-evaluate their moral and philosophical stance on the issue and if they still believe that someone else should pay for their education, rather than their parents or themselves, they should try to persuade the government by peaceful means. But obviously, I question the "ethics" of forcibly taking away someone else's income to provide for cheap education. Some student leaders in the UK claim that it is only fair that the super-rich pay for their (the students') education. It is ok, if such rich people want to donate to universities and sponsor students voluntarily, but it is unethical to force them to pay (as some students want, although the majority are indifferent about the outside source, as long as the money is provided). To me, a person who advocates the violation of someone else's rights cannot claim that he/she is protecting his/her own "rights" from a moral standpoint.
To me it is perfectly understandable that a student would be very upset at the news that their tuition fees might triple. This is in the name of "reducing a record deficit" which students generally aren't responsible for; I don't think they should be subjected to that level of financial hardship as a result.
Adds insult to injury that the decision is made by a bunch of middle-aged politicians who have mostly been to university and paid much less than they expect students to pay from now on.
> Adds insult to injury that the decision is made by a bunch of middle-aged politicians who have mostly been to university and paid much less than they expect students to pay from now on.
It's annoying and seems unfair, but the health of a nation's finances can't be placed at the mercy of eternal, unchanging entitlements.
14 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 42.5 ms ] threadIn developed countries this is not the case. University enrolments are dominated by the middle class. Effectively it is a wealth transfer from the poor to the decently well-off. Or, looked at another way, a transfer to the student from their future selves.
If you take the last point of view, income-contingent loan schemes (like Australia's) are a reasonably sensible way to fund university education.
(And don't try to claim that this is because they can't afford the associated costs; studies have repeatedly found that the costs of higher education are a very very minor factor in determining students' postsecondary attendance. The largest determining factor, by far, is the educational qualifications of students' parents.)
Your comment is no different.
What's more, your account was created roughly 10 minutes before you left this comment. Really? If you are an old user using it as a sock puppet, your fear of expressing even mainstream opinions is clearly crippling you. If, on the other hand, you are a user new to this site, there are infinitely better ways of contributing to it than unintelligent, unfunny snark about how European kids these days blah blah blah entitled.
There was also all that protesting and rioting in France a little while ago because the retirement age was being changed from 60 to 62. Seriously.
I just find it totally flabbergasting that people would choose retiring 2 years earlier over having your nation turn into a bankrupt and failed state. This type of thinking is just totally foreign to me.
And that was my first comment on this site, by the way.
The above is the main premise in this discussion. Next comes the entitlement argument. The UK government is not introducing a new policy, rather it is scaling back on an old one, restricting its involvement in education. It is sensible to bring back more freedom in education, where prices, just like in every other market within a free uncontrolled economy, should reflect fundamental value.
Obviously, the government has to be careful not to withdraw its support too quickly. After all, its involvement has distorted incentives in education to such an extent that withdrawing substantial funds too fast can cause a major economic upheaval. From what I know about the issue, this is not the case. I hope this is a gradual change in the right direction.
The best the students can do is re-evaluate their moral and philosophical stance on the issue and if they still believe that someone else should pay for their education, rather than their parents or themselves, they should try to persuade the government by peaceful means. But obviously, I question the "ethics" of forcibly taking away someone else's income to provide for cheap education. Some student leaders in the UK claim that it is only fair that the super-rich pay for their (the students') education. It is ok, if such rich people want to donate to universities and sponsor students voluntarily, but it is unethical to force them to pay (as some students want, although the majority are indifferent about the outside source, as long as the money is provided). To me, a person who advocates the violation of someone else's rights cannot claim that he/she is protecting his/her own "rights" from a moral standpoint.
Adds insult to injury that the decision is made by a bunch of middle-aged politicians who have mostly been to university and paid much less than they expect students to pay from now on.
It's annoying and seems unfair, but the health of a nation's finances can't be placed at the mercy of eternal, unchanging entitlements.