Selective subsidizing of higher education - good or bad idea?

[Valmy]

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.

Um just about every first world country I am aware of has shortages of engineers and medical professionals.

[Barrister]

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.

One could easily say that, but one would be wrong.

[Ideologue]

I like the notion of completely state-sponsored post-secondary education.

I also like the notion of making this retroactive through a form of loan forgiveness for those with outstanding student debt.

I have arrived at this position from my principles.

[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.

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.

You seem to operate under the assumption of unlimited resources. Sure, one "needs" philosophers, but the argument is that one needs engineers and doctors more - so you need to decide on which to spend the public resources.

[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.

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?

The quotas are based on performance. The best students (marks and relevant qualifications) get first pick. So if you really want to study philosophy but the spots are taken up by more qualified students, you can reapply next year. You get a bit of a bump to your score for having waited, and if you do something relevant that's appropriate for being a philosophy student, you get a bump in your ranking at well.

Seems pretty competitive and fairly flexible to me.

[Jacob]

Um just about every first world country I am aware of has shortages of engineers and medical professionals.

Is that simply a matter of educational institutions not turning out enough students of the relevant professions?

[Barrister]

Don't we already have quotas in a lot of areas of higher education?

I mean - I remember people (not me of course) being put on wait lists for law school because all the spots were filled...

[Malthus]

Don't we already have quotas in a lot of areas of higher education?

I mean - I remember people (not me of course) being put on wait lists for law school because all the spots were filled...

In part, that's a function of a professional guild attempting to restrict its monopoly. Too many lawyers = legal fees going down. 

I seem to recall the law society lobbying hard to prevent over-production of law students by law schools, at least in part for that reason ...

[Grinning_Colossus]

That's what the AMA does down here -- on the helpful pretext that we don't want crappy doctors. The ABA is rather more laissez faire, though.

[and by 'here' I mean back home in America]

[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.

You seem to operate under the assumption of unlimited resources. Sure, one "needs" philosophers, but the argument is that one needs engineers and doctors more - so you need to decide on which to spend the public resources.

Why?

If you do a medicine degree, you can pretty much safely bet that your likely lifetime earnings will easily, easily outstrip those of the average university graduate.

So why should public money be ploughed into med students, who are going to enjoy significantly higher personal benefit, more than any other degree?

Sure we will always need doctors and engineers. But they're paid very well once they have their qualifications, why should students then be subsidised when they are going to have the lifetime returns anyway?

[MadImmortalMan]

Why?

If you do a medicine degree, you can pretty much safely bet that your likely lifetime earnings will easily, easily outstrip those of the average university graduate.

So why should public money be ploughed into med students, who are going to enjoy significantly higher personal benefit, more than any other degree?

Sure we will always need doctors and engineers. But they're paid very well once they have their qualifications, why should students then be subsidised when they are going to have the lifetime returns anyway?

Some kid on pdox make an offhand statement about doctors making a hundred grand a year because they get a lot of overtime. That statement baffled me, and I asked about it. He never responded. I think he was from the UK.

On topic-I think the point is a good one though. Better to have the state pay for the general education and the student for the specializations.

[fhdz]

I like the notion of completely state-sponsored post-secondary education.

I also like the notion of making this retroactive through a form of loan forgiveness for those with outstanding student debt.

I have arrived at this position from my principles.

[Warspite]

Why?

If you do a medicine degree, you can pretty much safely bet that your likely lifetime earnings will easily, easily outstrip those of the average university graduate.

So why should public money be ploughed into med students, who are going to enjoy significantly higher personal benefit, more than any other degree?

Sure we will always need doctors and engineers. But they're paid very well once they have their qualifications, why should students then be subsidised when they are going to have the lifetime returns anyway?

Some kid on pdox make an offhand statement about doctors making a hundred grand a year because they get a lot of overtime. That statement baffled me, and I asked about it. He never responded. I think he was from the UK.

On topic-I think the point is a good one though. Better to have the state pay for the general education and the student for the specializations.

A consultant GP (top-ranking doctor) will get £100,000 and above, I believe. A friend of mine is a newly qualified surgeon, and she gets at least £40,000/year, so it's not too shabby at the lower end of things either.

[MadImmortalMan]

Good grief that's shitty. Forty grand wouldn't even cover the insurance premiums here. Even if it were in Sterling.

[crazy canuck]

On topic-I think the point is a good one though. Better to have the state pay for the general education and the student for the specializations.

That is effectively what happens here.  The price to students for things like law, medicine, engineering, mba degrees etc. are much greater than an arts degree.