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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2011, 11:25:05 AM
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? :P
The unemployable need a place where they won't do any harm.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 11:16:55 AMHowever, 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_cycle) as the state can't actually predict future demand any better than students themselves.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 11:16:55 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2011, 01:55:01 PM
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 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
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.
... and most studies here is pretty useless when it comes to getting a good job after :rolleyes:
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" :yucky:
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
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)
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 03:44:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2011, 01:55:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2011, 03:58:13 PMUm 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?
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...
Quote from: Barrister on September 28, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
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 ...
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]
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
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?
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:13:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2011, 04:07:37 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2011, 05:19:38 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:13:42 PM
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.
Good grief that's shitty. Forty grand wouldn't even cover the insurance premiums here. Even if it were in Sterling.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2011, 05:19:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:23:48 PM
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.
That may be a bit misleading. If doctors there are anything like doctors here they will have multiple streams of income.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2011, 05:26:22 PM
Good grief that's shitty. Forty grand wouldn't even cover the insurance premiums here. Even if it were in Sterling.
I suspect that reveals more about the US system than the attractiveness of NHS employment in the UK. ;) £40k for a 27 year old is a rather good income, and it's only going to increase with experience.
Quote from: fahdiz on September 28, 2011, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2011, 04:07:37 PM
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.
:lol:
Are you questioning my moral reasoning, sir? :angry:
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:34:12 PM
I suspect that reveals more about the US system than the attractiveness of NHS employment in the UK. ;) £40k for a 27 year old is a rather good income, and it's only going to increase with experience.
You have to remember that US med students go into considerable debt to obtain their qualifications. At that pay level they wouldnt pay off their debt before they retired.
Yeah that's an important difference. I believe the NHS will more or less pay for you to become a doctor or nurse, like the army, so for the length of the degree the debt burden's not too bad.
Plus UK student debt isn't offensive. It's not the sort that people can actually collect and it's gone pre-tax if you're working.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:34:12 PM
I suspect that reveals more about the US system than the attractiveness of NHS employment in the UK. ;) £40k for a 27 year old is a rather good income, and it's only going to increase with experience.
You have to remember that US med students go into considerable debt to obtain their qualifications. At that pay level they wouldnt pay off their debt before they retired.
At $60,000 upon qualification and increasing thereafter they would not pay off their debt?
How does anyone afford a mortgage or a car loan in America?
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2011, 04:21:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 28, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
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 ...
We address that at the bar exam level. :whistle:
About 2000 lawyers are spat out of universities in Warsaw alone each year. About 300 advocates and legal advisers (roughly, the equivalent of barristers and solicitors) are made in Warsaw each year. :ph34r:
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2011, 11:25:05 AM
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.
Like the infamous purposfully keeping the supply of doctors below demand....
Though I never noticed much of this on other courses.
Also, I think it is more honest for the state to tell you up front "we are going to pay for a useful degree but not for the less useful one" than to give people student loans for both, say, engineering and philosophy, and then have the latter go bankrupt because he cannot find a job to pay off his loans.
At the college entry levels, at least in continental Europe, people are between 17 and 18 y.o. so I think they are not fully prepared to make that decision - so that's when the soft paternalism of the state should guide them to pick more useful studies.
High-ranking employers should part-fund University courses that feed them graduates. The course as a whole, not individuals.
By this reasoning, McDonalds can pay a hefty whack towards Humanities.
I got industrial sponsorship through my course plus paid work experience in University holidays. There was no binding contract to work for them thereafter, but I gave them a good 18 months.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 03:34:33 AM
Also, I think it is more honest for the state to tell you up front "we are going to pay for a useful degree but not for the less useful one" than to give people student loans for both, say, engineering and philosophy, and then have the latter go bankrupt because he cannot find a job to pay off his loans.
At the college entry levels, at least in continental Europe, people are between 17 and 18 y.o. so I think they are not fully prepared to make that decision - so that's when the soft paternalism of the state should guide them to pick more useful studies.
Right, but as I said earlier, I don't think the state can actually really tell what is a truly useful degree. After all, wealth-producing activity (the kind that generates tax revenue to pay for these subsidies) is not just doctors and engineers. And it is wrong for the state to overly subsidise a degree that will generate the best private return to the graduate. It is not hard for the 17 year old, at least in the UK, to pick up a guide to graduate salaries and discover that chemical engineers have the highest average starting salary of any graduate profession.
Anyway, it's purely anecdotal but none of my acquaintances who studied philosophy are anywhere near bankrupt. Whereas BAE just laid off 3,000 people in its aircraft division yesterday. I bet a lot of them were engineering graduates. ;)
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:34:12 PM
I suspect that reveals more about the US system than the attractiveness of NHS employment in the UK. ;) £40k for a 27 year old is a rather good income, and it's only going to increase with experience.
You have to remember that US med students go into considerable debt to obtain their qualifications. At that pay level they wouldnt pay off their debt before they retired.
At $60,000 upon qualification and increasing thereafter they would not pay off their debt?
How does anyone afford a mortgage or a car loan in America?
Interests on them are tax deductible.
Quote from: Warspite on September 29, 2011, 05:53:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 03:34:33 AM
Also, I think it is more honest for the state to tell you up front "we are going to pay for a useful degree but not for the less useful one" than to give people student loans for both, say, engineering and philosophy, and then have the latter go bankrupt because he cannot find a job to pay off his loans.
At the college entry levels, at least in continental Europe, people are between 17 and 18 y.o. so I think they are not fully prepared to make that decision - so that's when the soft paternalism of the state should guide them to pick more useful studies.
Right, but as I said earlier, I don't think the state can actually really tell what is a truly useful degree. After all, wealth-producing activity (the kind that generates tax revenue to pay for these subsidies) is not just doctors and engineers. And it is wrong for the state to overly subsidise a degree that will generate the best private return to the graduate. It is not hard for the 17 year old, at least in the UK, to pick up a guide to graduate salaries and discover that chemical engineers have the highest average starting salary of any graduate profession.
Anyway, it's purely anecdotal but none of my acquaintances who studied philosophy are anywhere near bankrupt. Whereas BAE just laid off 3,000 people in its aircraft division yesterday. I bet a lot of them were engineering graduates. ;)
You don't get it. It's not about whether they are bankrupt or not. It's about whether they work in their learned profession. If they don't, then the investment into their education was wasted, and as such should not be subsidized with the taxpayer money.
Edit: Also, how many of your acquitances are not from privileged backgrounds?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 06:21:17 AM
You don't get it. It's not about whether they are bankrupt or not. It's about whether they work in their learned profession. If they don't, then the investment into their education was wasted, and as such should not be subsidized with the taxpayer money.
That's an odd view of the worth of education. I don't work as an economic historian, but I use the general skills and intellectual honing that my joint degree gave me every day to create value in the economy.
It's very hard to work as a philosopher, but it's a very valuable skill to be able to bring rigorous logic and linguistic precision to the table for many employers.
QuoteEdit: Also, how many of your acquitances are not from privileged backgrounds?
Not sure how this is relevant. They work very hard for a living and are financially independent. These days, connections can open a door for you, but you'll get booted out sharpish if you're not up to scratch.
Your post perfectly illustrates why the state should not subsidize the education you and your friends received. People who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
The tax payer should not pay for the likes of you. Sorry. Of course nothing wrong with your parents paying for you getting that. But that shouldn't be the state's burden. This money can be much better spent elsewhere.
Edit: And this also perfectly illustrates why "free higher education for everyone" really serves the rich much better than the poor - because unless the state pumps really huge amounts of cash into it, only the rich will be able to afford spending 4-5 productive years of their life getting vaguely relevant skills and knowledge (while living off their parents) - and at the same time this further inflates the need for a degree for the lower and middle classes to even get a job of a secretary or a receptionist.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 06:42:42 AM
Your post perfectly illustrates why the state should not subsidize the education you and your friends received. People who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
Maybe it is different in your country, but in the UK general skills and intellect can land you a decent job. In fact, a lot of very lucrative doors, and even some not-so lucrative ones, are closed if you cannot demonstrate this to a would-be employer. And not simply because of the inflation of job qualifications (a separate issue). This why a lot of students from non-privileged backgrounds (the majority who live in the middle) actually study things you would consider useless, quite of their own volition, and quite successfully in the end.
QuoteThe tax payer should not pay for the likes of you. Sorry. Of course nothing wrong with your parents paying for you getting that. But that shouldn't be the state's burden. This money can be much better spent elsewhere.
I would agree with this overall sentiment, the irony though is that most taxpayers in this country, from all classes, actually would disagree.
QuoteEdit: And this also perfectly illustrates why "free higher education for everyone" really serves the rich much better than the poor - because unless the state pumps really huge amounts of cash into it, only the rich will be able to afford spending 4-5 productive years of their life getting vaguely relevant skills and knowledge (while living off their parents) - and at the same time this further inflates the need for a degree for the lower and middle classes to even get a job of a secretary or a receptionist.
TO my recollection, in this thread I have neither argued for nor against free higher education, merely that selective subsidisation has practical and ethical problems.
It would appear your legal education has not equipped with either reading comprehension or an appreciation of logical validity. Maybe Poland should ask you for its money back.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2011, 05:26:22 PM
Good grief that's shitty. Forty grand wouldn't even cover the insurance premiums here. Even if it were in Sterling.
They don't have to pay insurance premiums here. The NHS picks up the tab. Fortunately we're not yet as litigous as you guys so lawsuits haven't bankrupted the state.
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:34:12 PM
I suspect that reveals more about the US system than the attractiveness of NHS employment in the UK. ;) £40k for a 27 year old is a rather good income, and it's only going to increase with experience.
You have to remember that US med students go into considerable debt to obtain their qualifications. At that pay level they wouldnt pay off their debt before they retired.
At $60,000 upon qualification and increasing thereafter they would not pay off their debt?
How does anyone afford a mortgage or a car loan in America?
For a top med school in the US, debt can be in the hundreds of thousands. The *average* debt for indebted med students for the class of 2010 was $157,944.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/medical-student-section/advocacy-policy/medical-student-debt/background.page?
At an income of $60K, this would take a long long time to pay off - considering docs would need accomodation, a car, etc.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 03:29:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2011, 04:21:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 28, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
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 ...
We address that at the bar exam level. :whistle:
About 2000 lawyers are spat out of universities in Warsaw alone each year. About 300 advocates and legal advisers (roughly, the equivalent of barristers and solicitors) are made in Warsaw each year. :ph34r:
In Canada, this is addressed at the entry to law school level. Once in, you have to practically *want* to fail the bar - but getting in is super-tough.
Another bottleneck is obtaining a good articling position.
Having the Bar be the cut-off seems a bad idea to me, as if you fail it, you have effectively wasted years of your life on law school ... what do the remainder of the 2000 who fail to pass the bar do, in Poland?
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2011, 08:10:24 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2011, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2011, 05:34:12 PM
I suspect that reveals more about the US system than the attractiveness of NHS employment in the UK. ;) £40k for a 27 year old is a rather good income, and it's only going to increase with experience.
You have to remember that US med students go into considerable debt to obtain their qualifications. At that pay level they wouldnt pay off their debt before they retired.
At $60,000 upon qualification and increasing thereafter they would not pay off their debt?
How does anyone afford a mortgage or a car loan in America?
For a top med school in the US, debt can be in the hundreds of thousands. The *average* debt for indebted med students for the class of 2010 was $157,944.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/medical-student-section/advocacy-policy/medical-student-debt/background.page?
At an income of $60K, this would take a long long time to pay off - considering docs would need accomodation, a car, etc.
Agree it could be tough, but what sort of repayment plans are the norm? Paying it back over 10 years is much more onerous than 20. Plus one expects a starting salary of $60k to start rising with experience, at least that is the case here.
Quote from: Warspite on September 29, 2011, 08:15:21 AM
Agree it could be tough, but what sort of repayment plans are the norm? Paying it back over 10 years is much more onerous than 20. Plus one expects a starting salary of $60k to start rising with experience, at least that is the case here.
I dunno what plans people tend to have to pay it off - it's basically the equivalent of taking out another mortgage, in amount.
Going into that kind of debt (not to mention, several years of non-earning while attending med school) would be a serious financial disincentive unless the average reward was significant.
I suppose it depends on what sorts of pay you can expect to get without the med degree.
The standard repayment plan is 10 years following graduation. $1,726 a month on a salary of $45,000-$55,000 for 4-7 years as a resident/fellow. <_<
Quote from: Fate on September 29, 2011, 09:13:31 AM
The standard repayment plan is 10 years following graduation. $1,726 a month on a salary of $45,000-$55,000 for 4-7 years as a resident/fellow. <_<
But in 20 years, you'll be raking in the dough ... unless some future version of socialized medicine is imposed. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2011, 09:18:44 AM
But in 20 years, you'll be raking in the dough
And wistfully watching it be raked out by your malpractice insurance provider.
When the revolution comes, he'll treat our wounded and torture our captives and his pay will be not catching a bullet with his face. :frog:
On the plus side, student loans will be eradicated. It might be be a net gain.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 29, 2011, 09:25:21 AM
When the revolution comes, he'll treat our wounded and torture our captives and his pay will be not catching a bullet with his face. :frog:
On the plus side, student loans will be eradicated. It might be be a net gain.
Heh, you graduated from law school. When the revolution comes, you will be shot out of a cannon as ammunition. :P
Cool.
Quote from: Warspite on September 29, 2011, 06:37:07 AM
It's very hard to work as a philosopher, but it's a very valuable skill to be able to bring rigorous logic and linguistic precision to the table for many employers.
Those two skills are indeed useful, but hardly exclusive to philosophy. Any science or engineering degree is based on math, that makes those skills essential to graduate.
They come along with a host of other useful abilities and knowledge. And that's why employers hire engineers and not philosophers, even outside of manufacturing. In fact out of all my friends who went into engineering, I'm the only one working manufacturing, and only indirectly (I design control and supervision systems). Most of them ended up in management, health & safety, sales, procurement, regulation and quality compliance ...
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2011, 06:21:17 AM
You don't get it. It's not about whether they are bankrupt or not. It's about whether they work in their learned profession. If they don't, then the investment into their education was wasted, and as such should not be subsidized with the taxpayer money.
Other than by the use of forced labor, how do you propose that the state ensure that people with "useful" degrees actually work in the field in which they obtained their degrees? I suppose it could be enforced as a matter of contract--upon entering higher education, you sign a contract with the government which states that in return for subsidizing your education in a particular field of study, you will work for a minimum of, say, 10 years in that field, but what happens if the government has overestimated the need for people in a particular field? If the system turns out 20,000 chemical engineers this year, but businesses only have openings for 5000 of them, what happens to the rest? You yourself stated that only a fairly small percentage of those who get law degrees in Poland are actually admitted to the bar--what about the rest?
In the UK I think the NHS pays for doctors and nurses (and certainly for dentists) to study on the condition that they work in the NHS for a few years. Similar to the armed forces.
But I think fundamentally you're right and it's especially difficult given EU free movement of labour. Poland focusing so much on specific degrees when those graduates can go and work anywhere in Europe would be like Oregon doing the same. There's no promise they'll work in the 'productive' sectors or that they'll work in your country. Better to have a market of employers-parents-students-universities than trying to engineer a specific result.
QuotePeople who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
This may be a cultural difference but that's not my experience in the UK. It does land you a decent job (or it can, times are pretty tough now) and there's not much of a social tilt to the different degrees, with a few notable exceptions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
QuotePeople who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
This may be a cultural difference but that's not my experience in the UK. It does land you a decent job (or it can, times are pretty tough now) and there's not much of a social tilt to the different degrees, with a few notable exceptions.
Agreed, I certainly didnt come from a privileged background. My first degree (BA) didnt lead to any particular job or profession but it certainly did give me the skills to succeed in my second degree and career.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
QuotePeople who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
This may be a cultural difference but that's not my experience in the UK. It does land you a decent job (or it can, times are pretty tough now) and there's not much of a social tilt to the different degrees, with a few notable exceptions.
I don't know what the percentage of university graduates in Poland is compared to the UK or the US, but just in raw numbers, the number of people in America with degrees may be more than the entire population of Poland. There are just so many people with degrees that having one just isn't anything special--at least as far as 4-year degrees are concerned. Post-graduate degrees are a different story, but even there, nobody is really impressed by someone with, say, a Master's in education.
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
nobody is really impressed by someone with, say, a Master's in education.
:huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2011, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
nobody is really impressed by someone with, say, a Master's in education.
:huh:
In the U.S, most teachers, even in primary schools, either have a Master's or are working on it. When something is that common, it no longer impresses anyone very much.
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
QuotePeople who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
This may be a cultural difference but that's not my experience in the UK. It does land you a decent job (or it can, times are pretty tough now) and there's not much of a social tilt to the different degrees, with a few notable exceptions.
I don't know what the percentage of university graduates in Poland is compared to the UK or the US, but just in raw numbers, the number of people in America with degrees may be more than the entire population of Poland. There are just so many people with degrees that having one just isn't anything special--at least as far as 4-year degrees are concerned. Post-graduate degrees are a different story, but even there, nobody is really impressed by someone with, say, a Master's in education.
I guess this could also be affected by the differences in how university education is organized here. You do not do several degrees in Poland - you go into a university degree that lasts for 4 or 5 years straight from high school and unless you want to do a PhD, that's it (obviously you can study more degrees than one, but they are separate and each takes 4 or 5 years, in principle). For example, you go to the university to get a masters degree in law which lasts for 5 years and you go there immediately after your "matura" (which is a general educational test you take after high school).
Didn't Poland participate in the Bologna process?
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2011, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
nobody is really impressed by someone with, say, a Master's in education.
:huh:
In the U.S, most teachers, even in primary schools, either have a Master's or are working on it. When something is that common, it no longer impresses anyone very much.
I find that hard to believe but I will take your word for it.
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2011, 12:27:44 PM
Didn't Poland participate in the Bologna process?
Marty's info on higher education seems to come from his own uni experiences and appears to be about a decade out of date :)
Quote from: Sahib on October 01, 2011, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2011, 12:27:44 PM
Didn't Poland participate in the Bologna process?
Marty's info on higher education seems to come from his own uni experiences and appears to be about a decade out of date :)
Quiet, you whippersnappers. :shakes his cane:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2011, 01:01:49 PM
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
In the U.S, most teachers, even in primary schools, either have a Master's or are working on it. When something is that common, it no longer impresses anyone very much.
I find that hard to believe but I will take your word for it.
I'll vouch. Mom got hers because there's an automatic raise that goes with it and the district paid the tuition. That's common.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 03, 2011, 11:33:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2011, 01:01:49 PM
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:51:43 AM
In the U.S, most teachers, even in primary schools, either have a Master's or are working on it. When something is that common, it no longer impresses anyone very much.
I find that hard to believe but I will take your word for it.
I'll vouch. Mom got hers because there's an automatic raise that goes with it and the district paid the tuition. That's common.
Yeah, this was common at my high school. Everyone got the master's degree and then stopped.
My high school teachers had doctorates.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2011, 11:03:37 AM
Quote from: dps on October 01, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2011, 09:52:03 AM
QuotePeople who do not come from privileged backgrounds usually go into education that can pay the bills/gives a profession, not something to "hone their general skills and intellect", or get "rigorous logic or linguistic precision" because without connections/"cultural capital" they know this will not be enough to land them a decent job.
This may be a cultural difference but that's not my experience in the UK. It does land you a decent job (or it can, times are pretty tough now) and there's not much of a social tilt to the different degrees, with a few notable exceptions.
I don't know what the percentage of university graduates in Poland is compared to the UK or the US, but just in raw numbers, the number of people in America with degrees may be more than the entire population of Poland. There are just so many people with degrees that having one just isn't anything special--at least as far as 4-year degrees are concerned. Post-graduate degrees are a different story, but even there, nobody is really impressed by someone with, say, a Master's in education.
I guess this could also be affected by the differences in how university education is organized here. You do not do several degrees in Poland - you go into a university degree that lasts for 4 or 5 years straight from high school and unless you want to do a PhD, that's it (obviously you can study more degrees than one, but they are separate and each takes 4 or 5 years, in principle). For example, you go to the university to get a masters degree in law which lasts for 5 years and you go there immediately after your "matura" (which is a general educational test you take after high school).
I'm not sure I understand your point. The fact that many people in America hold multiple Bachelor's degrees doesn't impact the percentage of the population or the raw number of people who hold a degree.