BF2S Forums Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

of course 'demand', in the general sense of the concept, drives everything- including course structure, funding, resourcing etc.

what i am discussing here though, very plainly, is the flaws of a demand-system based upon 'perfect competition' economic logic

if either of you had stopped with your conjecture for 5 minutes to read the fucking article you would see that the perfect competition model is what will lead to many educational and principle problems with the new system, because it removes the old base-level bloc grant altogether and places the full emphasis now on irrational decisions made by students and whimsical, temporal politically-engendered 'swings'.

seeing as i only revived this flogged-to-death thread because of the seemingly enlightening/refreshing points raised in the new article... i suppose it would do you debate-champion, d&st regulars a bit of good to go and fucking read the damn thing, really, wouldn't it?

Last edited by Uzique (2011-01-03 22:03:42)

Here's what I got out of the article.  The new system pushes forward an inconsistent form of free market principles onto your higher education institutions.

I think the general premise of this system isn't bad, but the inconsistencies are the problem.

Before putting a consumer-value system into place, the government should do a national audit of what's most needed in the workforce.  After spending a year or so on this, they could release a report showing what's most needed, and that itself would influence demand for certain fields somewhat.

Once it is established in the public's consciousness what the market needs most, then demand is informed enough among students that you start seeing a better array of choices made.

As for costs of programs, they should simply distribute funds where they are needed without affecting the actual cost to students.  I agree with the notion of keeping tuition the same for most students as long as only public institutions are involved, regardless of what program they pick.

In the case of education, demand should affect the distribution of resources but not the cost of consumption.  It's not a perfect competition model as the author mentions, but it shouldn't be anyway.  Tax funded institutions cannot function as a normal market because taxes are compulsory and not driven by demand.  However, this does not negate the worth in having demand drive the provision of courses themselves.

I disagree with the author's viewpoint on the nature of education in its worth to society, because unemployable knowledge or skills are essentially luxury items among the workforce.  We don't need that many artists, and so naturally, the resources devoted to less employable programs would dwindle and concentrate among the privileged.

It is in the taxpayer's best interests to have a system that efficiently and reliably produces economically valuable members of the workforce.