Tuition - Public Funding

[Assume Nothing]

I personally believe that the tuition fees should be based on a ratings scale - so Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Economics, Law, Education, Healthcare, etc. would cost much less than Media/Arts, History, Sociology, Drama, Music, Foreign languages (save maybe Spanish and Chinese, given that they are the two most prominent foreign languages), etc.

 

I'm basing this on the economic sustainability of these courses. I guess there are some grayer courses like politics, psychology, and philosophy where their uses are obvious but limited.

 

EDIT - On topic, I've been doing what I've always been doing - arguing on Off-Topic.

 

Split this from the Today thread. If I left anyones posts behind, or anything else about this thread needs to be changed, send me a PM.

 

~Randox

[stevepole]

I personally believe that the tuition fees should be based on a ratings scale - so Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Economics, Law, Education, Healthcare, etc. would cost much less than Media/Arts, History, Sociology, Drama, Music, Foreign languages (save maybe Spanish and Chinese, given that they are the two most prominent foreign languages), etc.

 

I'm basing this on the economic sustainability of these courses. I guess there are some grayer courses like politics, psychology, and philosophy where their uses are obvious but limited.

 

EDIT - On topic, I've been doing what I've always been doing - arguing on Off-Topic.

 

Rating scale? Economical sustainability? What are you talking about?

[Assume Nothing]

If it costs the economy, withdraw funding. If it contributes to the economy, add funding.

 

You should realise that the tuition fees we pay are still nowhere near the cost of education - the governments are still subsidizing it at a considerable rate. It's not economically sustainable to keep running media/art degrees if there is no practical use for that specific degree, since it would not contribute to society (and thus not enough government revenue from taxes), or at least, not as much as it should on an overall scale.

 

When I refer to rating scales, I mean the prioritization of these courses. Whichever contributes more receives more funding per student - it's as simple as that.

[stevepole]

If it costs the economy, withdraw funding. If it contributes to the economy, add funding.

 

You should realise that the tuition fees we pay are still nowhere near the cost of education - the governments are still subsidizing it at a considerable rate. It's not economically sustainable to keep running media/art degrees if there is no practical use for that specific degree, since it would not contribute to society (and thus not enough government revenue from taxes), or at least, not as much as it should on an overall scale.

 

When I refer to rating scales, I mean the prioritization of these courses. Whichever contributes more receives more funding per student - it's as simple as that.

 

In four years, I spent roughly $80,000 in out-of-state tuition on my film degree at a public university. Are you saying I should have paid more? Did you know that American films are one of the US's top exports? And how do media/art degrees not contribute to society? That just doesn't make sense, your entirely basing your opinion off what you believe are majors/careers that lead to success finically, that's great in theory but not every person that majors in mathematics, engineering, etc are going to be making six figures or whatever you envision to be "contributing to society."

 

I honestly belief you need to reevaluate your stance on the issue and do the proper research before you jump to such naive claim.

[Assume Nothing]

I think that might be an exception, but it does depend on what you're likely to give back to society in the long term (typical graduate earnings, including those who don't find a job). I refer to media/arts as in art, music, photography, etc. - the courses which have a hierarchy where the average earner doesn't make much, but the elite makes a lot. I don't have a position for your specific course because I don't know enough about it. I did express that my position was on general media/art courses.

 

I don't think your 'top exports' point was very relevant because it doesn't mean that the average filmography graduate would earn enough to triumph the other choices that I've listed, which we have a lack of graduates in. I think your point about 'six digit earners' goes against you more than it affirms your position - the average earner makes quite a lot in what I consider to be good financial choices.

 

Why do you have to accuse me of making a naive claim, when you have yet to allow me to explain my position? Consider calming down when you write these posts - its clearly implied that you're rather emotional right now.

[fastortoise]

If it costs the economy, withdraw funding. If it contributes to the economy, add funding.

 

You should realise that the tuition fees we pay are still nowhere near the cost of education - the governments are still subsidizing it at a considerable rate. It's not economically sustainable to keep running media/art degrees if there is no practical use for that specific degree, since it would not contribute to society (and thus not enough government revenue from taxes), or at least, not as much as it should on an overall scale.

 

When I refer to rating scales, I mean the prioritization of these courses. Whichever contributes more receives more funding per student - it's as simple as that.

You're equating education to money. Don't you see how it would be a problem if it was up to governments to decide what students can or cannot study by way of differentiating tuition fees?

[Assume Nothing]

It's a well accepted notion that good education in those courses is more likely to get a higher income than those who take arts/media courses, in general. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the concept that many of the arts/media industries are pretty full, so they're unlikely to pay off well unless you make it big.

 

If we prioritized course tuition, then the demand for some of the softer courses would go down whereas the 'better' courses may increase (law of demand).

[Ginger_Warrior]

It's a well accepted notion that good education in those courses is more likely to get a higher income than those who take arts/media courses, in general. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the concept that many of the arts/media industries are pretty full, so they're unlikely to pay off well unless you make it big.

 

If we prioritized course tuition, then the demand for some of the softer courses would go down whereas the 'better' courses may increase (law of demand).

Why do you assume that media/art students go to university to improve their income?

 

We already prioritise tuition. The NHS bursery pays for all non-medicine healthcare courses, for example. There are still art students sharing rooms with student nurses.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't think that was what I was arguing. I'm arguing that it would benefit society and the government, making little reference to individuals. If we grant that it is for the interest of the individuals, then we're still faced with the problem that one of the implied objectives of attending University is to receive a good income. I'm pretty sure that graduates of media/art courses earn less than satisfactory on average, but I may be wrong so don't quote me on this. It is rather subjective on what is 'satisfactory' though.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I read that art graduates earn less over their working lives than their non-university attending counterparts, so you're right on that front, but that only serves to emphasise my point. People are still going despite having their long-term wealth prospects damaged as a result, so they must be going for something other than money. In which case, what would raising their fees honestly achieve?

 

Secondly, how do you deal with the flood of people entering courses which are more "favoured" upon? They can't all have jobs; if you increase the number of graduates without increasing the number of jobs for them to go into, you're just creating a much more serious problem three years down the line, when they end up with a degree, but queuing up for the dole, something they could just as easily have achieved without five years of taxpayer-funded education.

[Racheya]

My problem is not so much with the courses being studied, but the sort of people studying them. Maybe it's because I don't go to a top Uni but the number of people I see going to Uni just to doss about is extremely annoying <_< They see it as free because of Student Finance and since they'll probably not earn enough to pay it back, it essentially is.

[Assume Nothing]

The raise in tuition fees would be a method of redistribution of people who choose to do these courses. The problem seems to be that too many are attending University to do a soft course, to enjoy the social experience as opposed to actually take something valuable from it to earn more, raise standards of living (and happiness), and contribute more to the government because it's so costly to fund these courses.

 

It is an arguable point that they may be less happy because of potential dissatisfaction with non-media/art courses due to passion, but I think they won't get left out because they'd choose that course anyway. They'll have to pay more, but they'd repay slowly as a form of tax so it shouldn't be too much of an issue for them.

[Randox]

Don't forget that a gigantic segment of the job market, at least for white collar jobs, require a degree, even though many of them don't really care what that degree is (anything but fine arts is normally good). So even though many many people never use their degree, they wouldn't be able to get their jobs without one.

[Tim]

It's a well accepted notion that good education in those courses is more likely to get a higher income than those who take arts/media courses, in general. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the concept that many of the arts/media industries are pretty full, so they're unlikely to pay off well unless you make it big.

 

If we prioritized course tuition, then the demand for some of the softer courses would go down whereas the 'better' courses may increase (law of demand).

 

In a way thats true here, but also secondary teaching is one of the most in-demand jobs in Australia for the past few years, even as an Art teacher. (which was why I'm planning on doing it. further my experience with artwork, and I've wanted to be a teacher. 2 birds 1 stone)

 

 

And just for you RPG:

[Assume Nothing]

To clear up confusion - I've requested Randox to separate the posts into its own thread because we were veering too off-topic. I think I'll have to quote my other reply, so give me a moment.

 

EDIT - Randox is a ninja and moved the other replies too. Feel free to continue the discussion here.

[Randox]

Right, split this from the Today thread, added note to the OP. And yeah, I can't split 2 pages at the same time. Has to be done page by page >.>

[Giordano]

We can't talk about subsidized tutitions while our governments favor in overextending the military budget, something much less useful to the nation.

[Assume Nothing]

If we endanger the prospects of the future working-population, then aren't we putting ourselves in a worse position? Too many people are taking courses for the fun of it, instead of taking something valuable from it. It would be money better spent if everyone who took a degree earned more on average - which could happen if more people filled in the gaps for the courses I've listed in my original post.

[stevepole]

I think that might be an exception, but it does depend on what you're likely to give back to society in the long term (typical graduate earnings, including those who don't find a job). I refer to media/arts as in art, music, photography, etc. - the courses which have a hierarchy where the average earner doesn't make much, but the elite makes a lot. I don't have a position for your specific course because I don't know enough about it. I did express that my position was on general media/art courses.

 

I don't think your 'top exports' point was very relevant because it doesn't mean that the average filmography graduate would earn enough to triumph the other choices that I've listed, which we have a lack of graduates in. I think your point about 'six digit earners' goes against you more than it affirms your position - the average earner makes quite a lot in what I consider to be good financial choices.

 

Why do you have to accuse me of making a naive claim, when you have yet to allow me to explain my position? Consider calming down when you write these posts - its clearly implied that you're rather emotional right now.

 

Naive because your thinking if flawed and you are more then welcome to explain your position at anytime, but as of yet you haven't.

 

I gave you an example of myself and and my major which is a media study, the study of film and film is considered an art. Another example of of why your thinking is flawed, one of my best friends was a History/ Poly Sci major and within a month of graduating (this past spring) he landed a mid range position at Chase Bank with a salary of $60k+ a year, with no prior experience in banking or sales. Another friend who was a math major/film is has recently moved back home and is working an entry level customer service position at a farming equipment company. Another flaw is that teachers (teaching degrees aka education) don't make a ton of money.

 

You're whole argument is that degrees that have better returns for their dollar should be cheaper to pursue then degrees that you claim don't have as great of a return because the government will collect more tax revenue from those with degrees that you believe will have a better dollar for dollar return in the long run. So based on your claim, I should have paid more money to my university, because I am not going to be making as much money as someone with a degree that you believe will earn more money then mine. If anything I should be paying less. You're arguing for inequality.

[Giordano]

If we endanger the prospects of the future working-population, then aren't we putting ourselves in a worse position? Too many people are taking courses for the fun of it, instead of taking something valuable from it. It would be money better spent if everyone who took a degree earned more on average - which could happen if more people filled in the gaps for the courses I've listed in my original post.

Um, no? If people get these degrees and find no work, they're going to work the same as uneducated workers - which ARE needed. Either way, it's up to the person if he wants to be a Nationalist or an Independent, not the government.

[Assume Nothing]

I think that might be an exception, but it does depend on what you're likely to give back to society in the long term (typical graduate earnings, including those who don't find a job). I refer to media/arts as in art, music, photography, etc. - the courses which have a hierarchy where the average earner doesn't make much, but the elite makes a lot. I don't have a position for your specific course because I don't know enough about it. I did express that my position was on general media/art courses.

 

I don't think your 'top exports' point was very relevant because it doesn't mean that the average filmography graduate would earn enough to triumph the other choices that I've listed, which we have a lack of graduates in. I think your point about 'six digit earners' goes against you more than it affirms your position - the average earner makes quite a lot in what I consider to be good financial choices.

 

Why do you have to accuse me of making a naive claim, when you have yet to allow me to explain my position? Consider calming down when you write these posts - its clearly implied that you're rather emotional right now.

 

Naive because your thinking if flawed and you are more then welcome to explain your position at anytime, but as of yet you haven't.

 

I gave you an example of myself and and my major which is a media study, the study of film and film is considered an art. Another example of of why your thinking is flawed, one of my best friends was a History/ Poly Sci major and within a month of graduating (this past spring) he landed a mid range position at Chase Bank with a salary of $60k+ a year, with no prior experience in banking or sales. Another friend who was a math major/film is has recently moved back home and is working an entry level customer service position at a farming equipment company. Another flaw is that teachers (teaching degrees aka education) don't make a ton of money.

 

You're whole argument is that degrees that have better returns for their dollar should be cheaper to pursue then degrees that you claim don't have as great of a return because the government will collect more tax revenue from those with degrees that you believe will have a better dollar for dollar return in the long run. So based on your claim, I should have paid more money to my university, because I am not going to be making as much money as someone with a degree that you believe will earn more money then mine. If anything I should be paying less. You're arguing for inequality.

 

You're accusing me of flawed argumentation, but you're not saying what the flaw is, explained how I've committed it, or the impact it has on the argument. It seems a little pointless, especially when you have so little backing you.

 

You've been providing unrepresentative evidence/examples too. Is a mid-range job at a bank reflective of a typical media/arts graduate? The answer is pretty simple - no. On the surface, it doesn't seem that he was hired because he had that specific degree. The math major/film doesn't sound very representative of a typical math major graduate either.

 

Do you know anything of their grades? Did the first guy get a first, whereas the second guy got a third? You need to provide more data before any judgement can be cast. Education degrees may not be the most beneficial in financial terms, but they are definitely considerable in social terms. You can't have a lack of teachers and expect a thriving economy in the years to come, whereas you can expect a lack of media/arts persons and still have an thriving economy. I'm accounting for the fact that with media/arts graduates, the top ones will be making the majority of the money so it doesn't matter too much whether it shrinks by 50% (arbitrary figure for illustrative purposes) or not.

 

Its not just the return per dollar. It's about the social necessity of them. It's about considering what happens if we don't have enough doctors, versus what happens if we don't have enough musicians/artists - or other combinations. The trade-off seems simple - take option that maximizes non-media/arts. This doesn't mean that we can't grant exceptions to certain media/arts degrees that are actually very good, like the exceptions that you have pointed out earlier.

[Assume Nothing]

If we endanger the prospects of the future working-population, then aren't we putting ourselves in a worse position? Too many people are taking courses for the fun of it, instead of taking something valuable from it. It would be money better spent if everyone who took a degree earned more on average - which could happen if more people filled in the gaps for the courses I've listed in my original post.

Um, no? If people get these degrees and find no work, they're going to work the same as uneducated workers - which ARE needed. Either way, it's up to the person if he wants to be a Nationalist or an Independent, not the government.

 

If we compare it to the current situation, we have too many people taking arts/media, and too few taking academics. The jobs would be available because they are considered a national asset, so your claim that the jobs wouldn't be there just doesn't suffice.

[Giordano]

You're accusing me of flawed argumentation, but you're not saying what the flaw is, explained how I've committed it, or the impact it has on the argument. It seems a little pointless, especially when you have so little backing you.

And you cried for somebody countering your non-explanatory post? Why do you even bother debating, you're so bad at it. :roll:

[Assume Nothing]

Cried? Non-explanatory post? So bad at debating?

 

I'm calling bullshit until you provide some references to what you're claiming.

 

Hypocrites of legend, you honestly are. Open your eyes and see.

[Giordano]

To address the other post -

 

If we compare it to the current situation, we have too many people taking arts/media, and too few taking academics. The jobs would be available because they are considered a national asset, so your claim that the jobs wouldn't be there just doesn't suffice.

Then let the natural demand for "academic" jobs be the inspiration for students to study them.

 

And please [bleep]ing quote to who you're talking to; double-posting intertwined with other posts aren't good for an organized debate. ...If we can call this squabble such.