Selective subsidizing of higher education - good or bad idea?

[Martinus]

The way Polish higher education works right now, there is a fiction of free access to education. Essentially, all state universities are constitutionally required to provide free higher education to people who pass entry exam (obviously, they receive state subsidies in return, but that's apparently never enough).

They get around this requirement by setting up a limited number of slots in the "day" studies (for people who get the best marks on the entry exam and/or high SAT score), and then set up a paid "evening" course (sometimes with 2-3 times more slots) for people who do not get into the day studies. In practice, they then hold lectures etc. for both groups in roughly the same time/side by side and there is no difference in quality in education received by both groups.

Now, the liberal party I intend to vote for has suggested this system is scrapped and replaced with paid college tuition (accompanied with pretty standard solutions, like sponsorship programmes for poor (as in non-wealthy) and well performing students, as well as student loans etc.) However, in addition they also propose an extra twist - i.e. that some studies that are deemed to be "useful" for the economy/in high demand from employers are additionally subsidized by the state on a public contract basis (which would make them effectively free) and some aren't.

In short they are saying that the state can pay if you want to become a doctor, or an engineer, but if you want to become a social studies or French romantic literature expert, fellow tax payers should not pay for it.

Obviously they are being lambasted for this idea by the left (they are saying it would turn Poles into a nation of technocratic rubes, essentially) but I wonder what Languish thinks about such ideas and whether something similar is implemented elsewhere.

[Valmy]

Encouraging people to get degrees that the economy needs, to prevent the necessity of having to import those people from abroad or have the whole economy suffer, seems like good sense to me.

I do not realy see the necessity of spending money to keep Poles from being rubes.  I mean that might be nice (though perhaps an impossible task) but it is hardly an imperative.

[The Brain]

In Sweden the state provides "free" education, regardless of which kind. Control is by varying the number of slots provided for different types of education.

[Martinus]

In Sweden the state provides "free" education, regardless of which kind. Control is by varying the number of slots provided for different types of education.

Yeah but even then, do we really need to pay for 1 social studies specialist a year?

[The Brain]

The unemployable need a place where they won't do any harm.

[Zanza]

However, in addition they also propose an extra twist - i.e. that some studies that are deemed to be "useful" for the economy/in high demand from employers are additionally subsidized by the state on a public contract basis (which would make them effectively free) and some aren't.

In theory that's a good idea, which I support. In practice it will lead to what is known as a pork cycle as the state can't actually predict future demand any better than students themselves.

[Grinning_Colossus]

The Swedish system sounds more reasonable. We still want artists, and great artists might emerge from among the poor... but we only need so many of them.

[Sahib]

The way Polish higher education works right now, there is a fiction of free access to education. Essentially, all state universities are constitutionally required to provide free higher education to people who pass entry exam (obviously, they receive state subsidies in return, but that's apparently never enough).

They get around this requirement by setting up a limited number of slots in the "day" studies (for people who get the best marks on the entry exam and/or high SAT score), and then set up a paid "evening" course (sometimes with 2-3 times more slots) for people who do not get into the day studies. In practice, they then hold lectures etc. for both groups in roughly the same time/side by side and there is no difference in quality in education received by both groups.

I disagree that free access to higher education is a fiction. We're in a period of demographic decline and practically everyone with half a brain can get a free place. Maybe not in his first choice school or major, but still. These who doesn't shouldn't be wasting their time studying because they clearly lack aptitude for that.
Also, evening courses don't exist anymore. It's either stationary or non-stationary.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I think if the state is going to be involved in deeming what sort of education spots are useful, the system of setting quotas/ seats is better than making some free and some not.

[Martinus]

Yeah, I think if the state is going to be involved in deeming what sort of education spots are useful, the system of setting quotas/ seats is better than making some free and some not.

I don't know. With quotas, I suppose it is not possible to have more seats/spots than the quota. So if I wanted to study philosophy suddenly, and already the quota was taken up, I could not do it. Under the proposed system I could but I would have to pay for it (or get sponsored by some programme).

Essentially under the selective subsidy system the state still leaves you a choice (although one with consequences, such as having to pay/find a sponsor). In your quota system, there is no flexibility/choice, since certain posts are simply unavailable.

Isn't the free market/flexible solution superior to your marxist solution?

[crazy canuck]

The government here subsidizes different courses of study differently for a whole variety of reasons.  For example it costs a lot more to run a faculty of medicine then it does to run a faculty of philosophy.  The cost difference is also reflected in the cost of the tuition charged to the students.

[Martinus]

The government here subsidizes different courses of study differently for a whole variety of reasons.  For example it costs a lot more to run a faculty of medicine then it does to run a faculty of philosophy.  The cost difference is also reflected in the cost of the tuition charged to the students.

I don't think the argument is to make all students pay the same. Just that should the state be as interested in making new philosophers as it is in making new engineers.

[szmik]

... and most studies here is pretty useless when it comes to getting a good job after

if I had my choice again I would be better of not studying for free, but going to work asap and getting studies done later and actually pay for it by myself    but being silly teenager I had gone with popular "wisdom" 

[Warspite]

The government here subsidizes different courses of study differently for a whole variety of reasons.  For example it costs a lot more to run a faculty of medicine then it does to run a faculty of philosophy.  The cost difference is also reflected in the cost of the tuition charged to the students.

I don't think the argument is to make all students pay the same. Just that should the state be as interested in making new philosophers as it is in making new engineers.

Why? One could just as easily say that a philosophy degree teaches skills of critical thinking and essential reasoning that are invaluable in a knowledge-based economy. People who make and design things are actually a very small proportion of economic output in rich countries, no matter what the manufacturing fetishists bang on about.

[crazy canuck]

The government here subsidizes different courses of study differently for a whole variety of reasons.  For example it costs a lot more to run a faculty of medicine then it does to run a faculty of philosophy.  The cost difference is also reflected in the cost of the tuition charged to the students.

I don't think the argument is to make all students pay the same. Just that should the state be as interested in making new philosophers as it is in making new engineers.

The argument wasnt to make all students pay the same.  Students in different progams pay different amounts which is partly a function of cost of the program, partly a function of how much government funds that particular program and partly how much can be obtained form other funding sources to run the program (ie private donations)