@Maniac: In the UK, having a degree increases your earnings potential by between £5k-£10k per year. Over a working lifetime of 40 years that's an extra £200k-£400k. Interest is only 1.5% pa and the repayments are going to be 9% of everything you earn above £21k - that's less than £1000 a year if you earn £30k (no hardship under those circumstances). Plus, if your income falls below £21k then your repayments stop until it increases again - there's no other type of loan anywhere that does that.

@SpeakerToAliens - before the changes on average a man would earn £141k more by gaining a degree as opposed to someone finishing school with A levels. As they will be borrowing £9-18k more now that figure willbe reduced. The £141k is an average figure someone in medicine on average earns £340k more and linguists earn on average £72k more.

@figles - whilst I think that supply and demand may not affect incentives for nurses as they would within a perfect market (the NHS where most nurses work isn't perfect market) I accept that supply and demand still has aplace in the arguement. However, individual nurses making decissions today about going into uni won't be able to predict that their wages will be higher when they qualify. The market could only react when we have a shortgage of nurses and then there will be a delay getting them trainer. Also we do have a shortgage of some nurses (midwifes) today.

@Ghost "It is totally unreasonable for the consumer of a computer game to benefit from the government funding the teaching of the programmers. That is why we should place the cost of the degree on the student, who will then make the decision based on whether or not they can make the money back by charging more for their services" So do you advocate the student paying 100% of the cost of acquiring a degree?

With regard to nurses I understand that some work is done on campus and other work is done on various placements so that nurses get a good grounding in all aspects of nursing prior to choosing their preferred field. One could argue that computer programmers, lawyers, accountants indeed most professions could be taught in the field.

@ghost - if the Lib-Dems who voted for the changes or abstained wanted to they could have resigned their seats and presented their new thoughts to their electorate, you know those people who sent them to parliment with a mandate. It will be interesting to see what their policy is at the next election, they have said that if tey won an election they would phase out tuition fees, will they stand on that platform again?

Whilst this wasn't a debate about tuition fees, it seems that I have been sucked in, so while we are on the subject, what d people think about a graduate tax?

"Indeed, it is totally unreasonable for the consumer of a computer game to benefit from the government funding the teaching of the programmers."

- the government has for many years considered the economy it's number one objective - strong economy means it can offer the services it is there to provide. Thus i can see the arguement for provided a decent level of education to help individuals find high paying jobs in sectors where there is likely to be growth (not many degrees in coal mining)

The alternative would be to place the burden of finding highly educated game animators on the companies (ie having them run inhouse training, and paying for college fees) but then you run the risk that those companies will simply move to countries which do provide free education.

"One could argue that computer programmers, lawyers, accountants indeed most professions could be taught in the field. " - yes engineers in the field learning by doing, physicists and a lot of other science which is done at university level should still be taught in universities - though perhaps more invovled with the experiments of their departments/lecturers.

Only in something like arts do you see a pure academic approach being required, am i wrong?

“So do you advocate the student paying 100% of the cost of acquiring a degree?”

I advocate a free market in education. Since universities gain sponsorship and endowments, students wouldn’t necessarily pay the full cost of a degree. In addition, a university trades on its standards most of all, and so I would expect a needs-blind admissions policy that optimises for it.

“With regard to nurses I understand that some work is done on campus and other work is done on various placements so that nurses get a good grounding in all aspects of nursing prior to choosing their preferred field. One could argue that computer programmers, lawyers, accountants indeed most professions could be taught in the field.”

Indeed, many vocational degrees could be taught that way. Whether it is better or not I don’t know, and I don’t think I could know. We need a market system to work out which is better.

“@ghost - if the Lib-Dems who voted for the changes or abstained wanted to they could have resigned their seats and presented their new thoughts to their electorate, you know those people who sent them to parliment with a mandate. It will be interesting to see what their policy is at the next election, they have said that if tey won an election they would phase out tuition fees, will they stand on that platform again?”

That defeats the point of representative democracy, namely you vote for a person who generally shares your views and then they make decisions for you. We might as well just each vote on each bill individually, since you seem to advocate that a manifesto should either be so vague as to be meaningless or should prescribe precisely which way someone will vote on an issue.

“Whilst this wasn't a debate about tuition fees, it seems that I have been sucked in, so while we are on the subject, what d people think about a graduate tax?”

It totally was a debate on tuition fees, you cannot separate the matter from its context!

@orathaic
“The alternative would be to place the burden of finding highly educated game animators on the companies (ie having them run inhouse training, and paying for college fees) but then you run the risk that those companies will simply move to countries which do provide free education.”

But we could equally tempt them with low taxes. I think that private institutions have the ability to fund these things at least at no greater cost than the government funds them. What we do with a university system is arbitrarily attract some industries, yes, but also arbitrarily put off other industries, which overall will have a negative effect.

Suppose that another country is ploughing its tax dollars into educating game animators. If they are doing it proportionately to the tax paid by that industry (and its stakeholders), I claim that the industry has no benefit in moving to the other country. This is because it makes no net benefit on the money that is put back into the industry. Indeed, because markets are more efficient than governments, it would really be harmful to move to the other country. Suppose, though, that the funding is disproportionate to the tax being paid by the industry. I claim first that this is a morally unacceptable state of affairs, and second, that we benefit from letting the industry relocate abroad.

That it is morally unacceptable is based on the fact that the government is taking money from those working in another industry without any justification. This is an affront to property rights (under my conception of morality) or fairness (under more mainstream conceptions).

That it is beneficial: If we allow the other country to do game animation, we can then buy the product at a reduced price, because their taxpayer is subsidising the product with the education system. Meanwhile, because we can tax less than the other country, there is a benefit to every single other industry in moving their operations to our country, and so we get a stronger industry everywhere else... and if the other country responds by subsidising more and more, the advantage to the subsidised industries rapidly drops as taxes increase, and the benefit to us in all other industries rapidly sharpens.

"what d people think about a graduate tax?"

A graduate tax would be a bad idea, to quote a friend of mine:

“There are a few problems with the NUS’s graduate tax proposal. Firstly, the repayment threshold would remain at £15,000. This means that the coalition’s proposal to raise the threshold to £21,000 would be a better deal for poorer graduates. Secondly, the NUS proposal is for a central fund to be created, that all the graduate contributions would be piled into and then distributed amongst universities. This would break the link of accountability between universities and their students: what incentive would there be for a university to respond to student demands if its funding is totally separated from it?

“Instead, the coalition’s proposals mean that universities would be forced to justify higher fees with better service. It essentially strengthens the link between universities and their students. The example we give is of Adam Smith pointing out how endowments of Oxford Colleges in the 18th Century meant that lecturers could get away with not ‘even the pretence of teaching’. Central funds of the sort the NUS propose, directed by bureaucrats rather than students, are essentially modern-day versions of the endowments Smith described.”

@ Ghostmaker: "@Jamiet, I know you don’t like the idea that perhaps the lib dems can see more benefit in working with the conservatives than with the labour party, and that you will be bitter with them for that, but really, you’re just being ridiculous. Both parties are “breaking” specific manifesto pledges to make the government happen. It seems as though you’d rather we’d had a minority government that couldn’t pass laws owing to the political opportunism of opposition parties."

In my view the pledge that the Lib Dems signed goes further than the contents of their manifesto. Let me explain why. A party's manifesto sets out the plans that they will try to enact IF, and only if, they win the General Election. The Lib Dems did not win the election. Therefore it is reasonable for them not to expect to be able to carry out every plan from their manifesto as part of the coalition.

The pledge on tuition fees, however, was not just a manifesto pledge. It was a seperate commitment. A commitment to vote against fee rises WHATEVER the result of the election. It is therefore in a different category to any pledges from their manifesto.


@ figlesquidge: "I still can't get my head round why people are so cross with Clegg. He lead the party to a very good result in the election."

No he didn't. Their election performance was mediocre, and they actually lost a few seats overall.

23% of the vote translating to 9% of the seats sounds like a pretty poorly run campaign, like they spread themelves too thin... though obviously an alternative to first past the post voting system could be argued for.

"[that ... funding is disproportionate to the tax being paid by the industry] is morally unacceptable is based on the fact that the government is taking money from those working in another industry without any justification. This is an affront to property rights (under my conception of morality) or fairness (under more mainstream conceptions)."

First of all who said life was meant to be fair?
government policy could very easily be to encourage one specific industry to help advance the world - and this may be better than undirected market advances.

Your claim that market systems are the most efficient seems to fail to recognize the weakness of such a system. Untempered by common sense - market forces push consumption higher to keep up growth, which in the US results in big fuel guzzleing cars. However higher consumption and unending/exponential growth is atrictly not possible, due to the finiteness of the world.

"23% of the vote translating to 9% of the seats sounds like a pretty poorly run campaign, like they spread themelves too thin... though obviously an alternative to first past the post voting system could be argued for."

To be fair, that's a fate the Lib Dems will always suffer.

"First of all who said life was meant to be fair?
government policy could very easily be to encourage one specific industry to help advance the world - and this may be better than undirected market advances."

I don't, but many do, and I was pointing out that if you take their premises, you can't argue for public funding of university education. Nevertheless, many argue for it on the very grounds that it is "fair".

"Your claim that market systems are the most efficient seems to fail to recognize the weakness of such a system. Untempered by common sense - market forces push consumption higher to keep up growth, which in the US results in big fuel guzzleing cars. However higher consumption and unending/exponential growth is atrictly not possible, due to the finiteness of the world."

Totally untrue. Consumption is nothing to do with capitalism, and people consume the funds of the government just as they consume private funds. Market forces cannot do something to "keep up growth", because "growth" is meaningless to those who act in the market, and market forces are the passive consequence of what individuals do. Growth is a simplification of the concept that is people buying new cars, not the other way round.

Furthermore, America's movement to ever increasing consumerism is "funded" by having low interest rates that encourage it, and the interest rate is not controlled by the market, unfortunately.

Ghost said (quoting a friend of his) “There are a few problems with the NUS’s graduate tax proposal. Firstly, the repayment threshold would remain at £15,000. This means that the coalition’s proposal to raise the threshold to £21,000 would be a better deal for poorer graduates. Secondly, the NUS proposal is for a central fund to be created, that all the graduate contributions would be piled into and then distributed amongst universities. This would break the link of accountability between universities and their students: what incentive would there be for a university to respond to student demands if its funding is totally separated from it?

This is a clever debating trick, define a poor version of a graduate tax and then rubbish it. There is nothing to say that a graduate tax couldn't start at a higher threshold or that the money raised couldn't be given to potential students so that they decide where best to spend it - ie creating the market that Ghost yearns for.

Re: Representative democracy, i'm all in favour of it but it needs trust to be able to work, which is why I'm so appauled when any political party breaks that trust for whatever reason. If the Tories promised to cut taxes and then raised them, or Labour promised to spend more on the NHS and then cut the budget, i would be just as upset - whether I agree with tax cutting or increase spending or not. If we can't trust them to keep to specific promises then there is no point voting and people will seek other means of getting their point across. This is why it should be possible for us to have a debate on the lib-dems keeping their word without a full debate on tuition fees. I'd gladly agree for the sake of arguement that the tuition fee decision is the right one so we could focus more on the broken promises issue.

I was quoting something not totally relevant which gives the basic idea.

As for giving money to potential students through a tax, how much red tape do you want exactly? Furthermore, it is still ostensibly *not the student's own money* which is still a problem.

Maybe the cost of education should be retroactive depending on how much you earn after you graduate, say 10% of your earnings during he first 10 years after you graduate. Evidently, an education isn't worth the same to everyone who gets on.

No, why should it be that? Let students bear the full cost, since that makes them think about whether or not that degree is the best choice for them.


@Maniac, yes, they didn't do something they said they would, but that's the practical reality of the politics we have. Circumstances change, and the politicians make the call based on the current situation. Of all the examples of breaking promises, this is probably the least concerning, to the point of no concern at all.

@ghost - it's no more red tape than the current system. A Loan isn't the students' own more either.

Saying something is the preactical reality and expecting people to just accept it is a weak arguement, as well you know. What circumstances change exactly between the Lib-Dems pledging to vote against tuition fees and them voting in favour of them? I agree that there are other instances of broken promises, not increasing VAT for example that could also be quoted but that doesn't let the Lib-Dems of the hook that they have placed themselves on over tuition fees.

@ghost - out of interest are you in favour of no loans or grants at all, in effect students have to find the money up front?

Well, G, the value of a degree cannot be determined exclusively by the salary you pull in when you finish. I might be tempted to make just the opposite claim, actually. There are all sorts of ways to establish value. You just happen to have chosen one to the exclusion of all others. And the one you've chosen tends to create individual mercenaries with no connection to the community. Why shouldn't the society take an interest in the education of their children? Why shouldn't there be an interest in, for example, creating excellent teachers for our primary schools? Researchers who are motivated by the search for truth rather than money? Economists who are more interested in fostering stability rather than the volatility that is the bread and butter of the speculators? And yes, why not poets and artists? And why shouldn't that education be subsidized precisely by the mercenary who's going to go to a bank and work for a commission and spend a few years trying to make that big deal fall regardless of the long term cost to employer, client, or society? I know economy better than you think, but I know the people that manage our economy even better.
Though it does actually strike me as an elegant solution, my suggestion of retroactive payment to the college was just bait. It's not everyday you catch the fish you cast to.

@abgemacht- I completely agree with you, there are good public schools. I went to a community college for two years for free (I was on a state-sponsored merit scholarship). However, I couldn't get myself to attend a huge school with class sizes of 300 or more. Heck, I don't like classes with more than 20.

I remember seeing an article in our local newspaper comparing the average in-debtness of students from local colleges. I believe the average was around 14,000 for public schools and 16,000 for private schools. Luckily I'm pretty smart and poor so I get plenty of need based and merit based scholarships.

Also, I graduated today. :) Unemployment here I come!!

@ Ghostmaker: Does the fact that you did not respond to my last post imply that you accept my argument that the Lib Dems tuition fee pledge was significantly different to a manifesto pledge, and that therefore their breaking of it carries greater significance?

"@ghost - it's no more red tape than the current system. A Loan isn't the students' own more either."

It is far easier for the student to demand high quality education when they can point to the fees that they are directly paying *now*, even if they have a loan to do so. If the university needs to attract students to get money *now*, the incentives to perform in the best interests of the students are heightened.

"Saying something is the preactical reality and expecting people to just accept it is a weak arguement, as well you know. What circumstances change exactly between the Lib-Dems pledging to vote against tuition fees and them voting in favour of them? I agree that there are other instances of broken promises, not increasing VAT for example that could also be quoted but that doesn't let the Lib-Dems of the hook that they have placed themselves on over tuition fees."

I totally disagree. That circumstances have changed and the practical reality is that promises cannot be maintained is of the utmost importance. You seem to demand either the impossible or the absurd.

"Well, G, the value of a degree cannot be determined exclusively by the salary you pull in when you finish. I might be tempted to make just the opposite claim, actually. There are all sorts of ways to establish value. You just happen to have chosen one to the exclusion of all others. And the one you've chosen tends to create individual mercenaries with no connection to the community. Why shouldn't the society take an interest in the education of their children? Why shouldn't there be an interest in, for example, creating excellent teachers for our primary schools? Researchers who are motivated by the search for truth rather than money? Economists who are more interested in fostering stability rather than the volatility that is the bread and butter of the speculators? And yes, why not poets and artists? And why shouldn't that education be subsidized precisely by the mercenary who's going to go to a bank and work for a commission and spend a few years trying to make that big deal fall regardless of the long term cost to employer, client, or society? I know economy better than you think, but I know the people that manage our economy even better. "

Let me go through this point by point, in ultra-brief:
"Well, G, the value of a degree cannot be determined exclusively by the salary you pull in when you finish.” If the cost of the degree cannot be justified by the potential earnings after it is completed, then that means either
(a) The job is underpaid, and so the matter will be corrected by the market, or
(b) The justification for the degree is in part “leisure”, i.e. for the person’s own enjoyment or whatever. This is fine, but I therefore think that that person should pay for the cost.
“And the one you've chosen tends to create individual mercenaries with no connection to the community.” If that’s how you want to put it, so be it. I maintain that people are (justifiable) self interested. I’m not turning people into ‘mercenaries’, but the other way around, I am proposing a system that takes account of the fact that they are.
“Why shouldn't the society take an interest in the education of their children? Why shouldn't there be an interest in, for example, creating excellent teachers for our primary schools?” Because it isn’t ‘society’s’ responsibility... children should be cared for and funded by the parents who chose to have them. If the parents fall short, there is an argument for intervention, but then that is a very specific circumstance. I agree, we should have excellent primary school teachers. If people are put of primary school teaching because it doesn’t pay enough, the solution is to increase their pay, not to have a convoluted funding system for universities.
“Researchers who are motivated by the search for truth rather than money?” Many are, but why should we be required without our will to fund that indulgence. Money is the measure of a person’s work’s worth to other people. To do something which is not optimal in earning money is to indulge oneself. There’s no problem with that- I hope to do it myself, but I can’t ask other people to fund it.
“Economists who are more interested in fostering stability rather than the volatility that is the bread and butter of the speculators?” Poppycock. Sorry.
“And yes, why not poets and artists?” I fail to see why I should be forced to fund some pretentious (or even not pretentious) poet or artist. I would far rather that the people who were interested in said artist funded them (and there as some I would fund). Again, if they can’t justify the cost of their education with the earnings from their work, it is an indulgence that they cannot demand I pay for.


“@ Ghostmaker: Does the fact that you did not respond to my last post imply that you accept my argument that the Lib Dems tuition fee pledge was significantly different to a manifesto pledge, and that therefore their breaking of it carries greater significance?”

No, it means I missed your post entirely. The situation changed when the Lib Dems made it into government as part of a coalition. The question is whether you demand a politician does A when B is better at this point in time just because they said they would do A in advance. I can’t see how you can demand that without locking yourself into absurdity.

"@ghost - out of interest are you in favour of no loans or grants at all, in effect students have to find the money up front?"

As ever, I am in favour of a complete free market- you get a student loan from a private bank or building society, and use that to pay any fees your university demands.

Ghost: thanks for that detailed reply. Clearly my paradigm cannot communicate with your paradigm, but I appreciate the effort anyway. :) Since you'd evidently do away with national healthcare, and public education, I am still a little curious about how far you are willing to take the free market. Shall we turn over national defense? police and justice? Shall we turn over government to a professional administration company that has to bid for a new contract every four years?

@ TheGhostmaker: "The situation changed when the Lib Dems made it into government as part of a coalition. The question is whether you demand a politician does A when B is better at this point in time just because they said they would do A in advance. I can’t see how you can demand that without locking yourself into absurdity."

Would it therefore be your view that no political party (or individual politician) should ever make a promise in the first place?

@ghost - I accept that we tax payers should be forced to educate the pretentious (or unpretentious) as I am nearly 45 and you are much younger, there is a good chance that my tax pounds have funded part of your education. As I know you have a gift for figure, if you could work out exactly how much you owe me and send me a cheque, i'd be very appreciative. If you end up doing something worthwhile (other than the ghost ranking) I'll send it back to you.

shouldn't *

On the point about me demanding the absurd or the impossible, al I "demand" is that the people who we elect to represent us, represent us. That means finding out what the electorate want, formulating a manifesto and commitments and then carrying out that program. What you seem to advocate is a system whereby they can come up with all kinds of rubbish to get our vote and then not be held to account afterwards.

You really shouldn't be so gulinle as to believe that things have changed since the election, I never thought for one moment that Vince cable discovered Greece somtime before the polls closing and his ministeral car door opening. He has recently said that he had changed his mind about what was needed to, in his mind, rectify the economy before the election, he just hadn't bothered to tell anyone. In effect he didn't believe what he was saying when he was campaigning, but he said it anyway to get our votes.

"Shall we turn over national defense? police and justice? Shall we turn over government to a professional administration company that has to bid for a new contract every four years?"

Those three examples (defense, police, and justice) I do allow for government action in.

"Shall we turn over government to a professional administration company that has to bid for a new contract every four years?"

I would require a constitution, but if the government wants to "privatise everything" in that way, and people run with it, that might be an effective way of performing those duties mentioned above.

I am also interested in (and undecided on) the idea of many governments, and you choose which one will have jurisdiction over you.

"Would it therefore be your view that no political party (or individual politician) should ever make a promise in the first place?"

The only promise should be to respect the constitution and some very broad principles. (e.g. that referendums should be held to amend the constitution or that we should aim for social mobility etc.) Everything else should be considered expressly contingent on circumstances.

"On the point about me demanding the absurd or the impossible, al I "demand" is that the people who we elect to represent us, represent us. That means finding out what the electorate want, formulating a manifesto and commitments and then carrying out that program. What you seem to advocate is a system whereby they can come up with all kinds of rubbish to get our vote and then not be held to account afterwards."

We hold them to account at subsequent elections. That is a matter of fact. I don't see that the fact that the Lib Dems said, under totally different circumstances, that they would do one thing, and then when the circumstances changed (i.e. they are working in a coalition government), they changed their mind is a problem. Equally, the electorate can boot them out at the next election if they don't like it.

"Those three examples (defense, police, and justice) I do allow for government action in." But why G? Think of all that money that is wasted by the defense department, they overpay for EVERYTHING. A little competition could really clean up their acts. Just contract it out to Blackwater and Bam! Police? Why when there are thousands of starving PIs that would love to see criminal investigations go to the lowest bidder. And justice? All that back log would just go up in smoke. Verdicts to the highest bidder, now there's a market I'd like to see. Jails could be privatized too, why not?