Tuition - Public Funding

[Assume Nothing]

People are irrational and lazy - you know that. We need to create incentives that could persuade them to take the correct courses. A good means of doing that would be through strategic pricing.

[Giordano]

People are irrational and lazy - you know that. We need to create incentives that could persuade them to take the correct courses. A good means of doing that would be through strategic pricing.

If a good paying (of money) isn't convincing, what makes a cheaper (of money) tuition any better?

 

And you're horribly biased by calling academic degrees as "correct" ones. Stop judging and maybe people will respond kinder.

 

And quote tags. Use them.

[Assume Nothing]

People are irrational and lazy - you know that. We need to create incentives that could persuade them to take the correct courses. A good means of doing that would be through strategic pricing.

If a good paying (of money) isn't convincing, what makes a cheaper (of money) tuition any better?

 

And you're horribly biased by calling academic degrees as "correct" ones. Stop judging and maybe people will respond kinder.

 

And quote tags. Use them.

 

People are generally short-term thinkers. Economists are concerned with the long-term gains. Studying media/arts would be more fun in the short term, but worse on average for the long-term.

 

I'm labeling academics as a generally good thing over media/arts because I see actual necessity for them. I don't see the same necessity in media/arts, which is why I'm generally against it. We're not discussing whether we should eliminate the courses - rather, we're talking about whether we should change the fees to reduce the saturated media/arts courses, and replace them into some of the empty seats in academics.

 

I'll even present a counterargument for you, since you prefer to make personal taunts instead of actual reasoning. I admit that those interested in media/arts may not have an interest in academics, so it would be pointless to try and persuade them to do academics. But, the counterpoint would be that they won't have to - they can stay in media/arts if it really benefited them that much.

 

It's likely that the benefits of such an action could dwarf the costs of raising tuition fees for 'soft, pointless degrees'. We are talking on a massive scale here.

[Giordano]

 

People are generally short-term thinkers.

So people are stupid?

Yeah, I totally agree.

[Assume Nothing]

Straw man. People operate on incentives. People are egoistic and like to think for themselves, regardless of intention. It usually requires strong conscious effort to be truly altruistic.

 

For their own minds, short term is more relevant than long term, therefore it takes priority - so, short term gains or minimizing short term losses is a considerably stronger incentive than long-term gains. That's why funding is so relevant - its an immediate withdrawal of money, even in the form of loans.

[Range_This11]

Assume, have you been to college yet?

[Danqazmlp]

If the money goes up for arts courses, who is to say they will go into the 'academic' courses as you say? Would they simply not go to university at all, leading to them contributing even less to society as you would say?

 

The English government already does this in a way, and it has pissed off a LOT of people. PGCE courses in England will give grants base on course taken and grade received. For example, the sciences and maths students can receive up to £20,000 in grants, which a History student with the same degree level can only get up to £9,000. Then non-GCSE course students with the same grade can't get any grant whatsoever. Has this changed who does what? From what I've seen, not a single bit, as 180+ people were interviewed for 24 places at a university I had an interview at, more than previous years, and that isn't including those who didn't get an interview.

 

So while that isn't a normal degree type (PGCE=Post Graduate Certificate of Education, so you get it after your degree), it still shows that making it easier for those in the sciences doesn't work, and only benefits in royally pissing people off.

[Assume Nothing]

We need statistics on why people choose a particular course. I'm a bit confused on your use of statistics. Could you briefly explain what this means?

 

"Then non-GCSE course students with the same grade can't get any grant whatsoever. Has this changed who does what? From what I've seen, not a single bit, as 180+ people were interviewed for 24 places at a university I had an interview at, more than previous years, and that isn't including those who didn't get an interview."

 

I'm not sure what to make of that. I've lost you after 'as 180+ people' - how does that prove the distribution didn't change again?

[Gandorf61]

No, the whole point that's being missed is that arts students generally make less because they have other benefits (less stress, more favorable hours, less demanding jobs, more enjoyable) than say a doctor. The basic economics rate of return principle states that rates of return are equal for all things when you take into account all utility, not just wages that's being referred to in the case of jobs.

 

Also you can't assume that raising arts tuition will cause tons of people to start studying sciences. Sure there are some people who are in arts due to not making the cut for sciences, but the majority of people have a passion for an arts program and would either pay more (which is discrimination) or not go to university at all. I don't think society would benefit from this or the fact that if people did flock to sciences, a lot of them would hate it anyways and end up miserable in their jobs.

[Danqazmlp]

We need statistics on why people choose a particular course.

 

I'm a bit confused on your use of statistics. Could you briefly explain what this means?

 

"Then non-GCSE course students with the same grade can't get any grant whatsoever. Has this changed who does what? From what I've seen, not a single bit, as 180+ people were interviewed for 24 places at a university I had an interview at, more than previous years, and that isn't including those who didn't get an interview."

 

I'm not sure what to make of that. I've lost you after 'as 180+ people' - how does that prove the distribution didn't change again?

 

 

This change has come in this year, meaning that last year students who went for PGCE's could either get more money for some courses and less than other. For the one I went to, the maximum grant was higher, meaning that it effectively cost less last year. This hasn't made less people go for it though. And this is a History PGCE. Making it cost more doesn't mean that people will change their plans.

[Randox]

As another point of interest, I know a few arts students, including those in the fine arts, and they are in some of the most demanding courses you can take. As far as University courses go, the music classes (not stuff like music appreciation, I mean things like composition and performance courses) are quite possibly the most demanding courses offered, easily on par with Engineering, Law, and Medicine. Most of the people who are either taking some sort of performing art class, or work in one of the support roles (such as costume design), work their asses off, and their work consumes their lives.

 

My point being, a lot of people assume the arts are easy, because there are a whole bunch of bird courses in them (music appreciation being the worst offender I have ever seen). But the people who are in arts only stick with it because that is what they are passionate about. If your just getting a degree, or your there for fun, your probably in psychology or political science (the former being what is probably the most underused degree ever, in terms of people who have it vs people who use it).

[stevepole]

You still have not explained your position.

 

My examples say that just because of ones degree, it doesn't mean they will go follow that career path they intended. Grades? My friend with the history major was an honor student, the one with a degree in math held roughly a 3.0. What is a typical math major graduate? Do all become teachers or accountants? You assume people follow set paths in lives. You ask more more data but yet you provide nothing more then your assumptions on society. What are your personal credentials that give you credit in your augment?

 

Now you argue social necessity, yet you want talk about the removal of culture from society.. Last time I check culture is a major part of everyday society.

 

Allowing an exception for one media art that gains huge profits is like say that it's alright for only artist like Andy Warhol (yes, I know he is dead) to be allowed to paint but not a random 24 year old with an art degree because the sum of money he is likely to bring in won't equate to the Warhol's in this world. In a system that you describe it's all or nothing, there are no exceptions.

 

Another variable it doesn't appear you've taken into account is the availability of jobs. If everyone that goes to college now were to switch their majors to the ones you find most vitiable, are there enough jobs to support the number of graduates in those fields?

 

I'm starting to build the opinion that you've read/watched (creative art majors probably created said media, btw) to many glamourous or horrify tales about society, but have yet to really experience the world for yourself.

 

I don't see myself continuing in this discussion until you can provide anything compelling to further your argument which you have failed to do as of yet, to be honest.

[sees_all1]

I don't think the public should fund schooling after high school (e.g. college or university). While in theory free college for everyone sounds nice, college isn't for everyone.

 

I believe this demotivator sums it up quite nicely:

 

 

Right now (especially in school and health care) we've seen that government intervention is good at one thing: driving prices up. I don't believe the solution to bad government is more government.

[Range_This11]

I totally disagree with you on the point of funding, but agree with you that college isn't for everyone. There are many people who cannot afford college that are very capable of and willing to learn. Without state funding, college regresses to the way it was before the democratization of institutions of higher learning during the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing more than wealthy elites educating other wealthy elites.

[sees_all1]

I totally disagree with you on the point of funding, but agree with you that college isn't for everyone. There are many people who cannot afford college that are very capable of and willing to learn. Without state funding, college regresses to the way it was before the democratization of institutions of higher learning during the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing more than wealthy elites educating other wealthy elites.

If you really want to go to college, you'll figure a way to do it. My older sister has taken on about $300,000 in debt to attend medical school. Do we need doctors? You betcha. Do I think someone else should have taken on that cost for her to become a doctor? No way!

 

Putting education expenses on people also make them much more responsible. My older sister, brother, younger sister and me all attend college, and we pay for it ourselves (not our parents). All of us will graduate on time. I'm not aware of statistics on how fast people graduate, but from what I've seen, the people paying their own way graduate on time. I also have many friends who are privileged enough to go to school on their parents dime, most of them end up changing their majors half way through or take an extra year or two to graduate.

 

I don't think "professional student" should be a job, and public funding for higher education enables that.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As another point of interest, I know a few arts students, including those in the fine arts, and they are in some of the most demanding courses you can take. As far as University courses go, the music classes (not stuff like music appreciation, I mean things like composition and performance courses) are quite possibly the most demanding courses offered, easily on par with Engineering, Law, and Medicine. Most of the people who are either taking some sort of performing art class, or work in one of the support roles (such as costume design), work their asses off, and their work consumes their lives.

During my year at med school, there was only one other group of students that I really didn't envy when it came to workload. Drama students. The amount of work they technically have to do for the degree isn't much at all, but throw in all the stuff they realistically need to do in order to have any decent prospects for the future, and you've yourself got a stupidly hard schedule. They get on with it too, somehow, because it's something they just love doing.

 

I don't like this notion that art students are lazy people who are temporarily avoiding the job market, and who will ultimately contribute nothing useful to society. That kind of course snobbery belongs on The Student Room, not here. And that's coming from someone with a heavy background in science and humanities.

[obfuscator]

As another point of interest, I know a few arts students, including those in the fine arts, and they are in some of the most demanding courses you can take. As far as University courses go, the music classes (not stuff like music appreciation, I mean things like composition and performance courses) are quite possibly the most demanding courses offered, easily on par with Engineering, Law, and Medicine. Most of the people who are either taking some sort of performing art class, or work in one of the support roles (such as costume design), work their asses off, and their work consumes their lives.

During my year at med school, there was only one other group of students that I really didn't envy when it came to workload. Drama students. The amount of work they technically have to do for the degree isn't much at all, but throw in all the stuff they realistically need to do in order to have any decent prospects for the future, and you've yourself got a stupidly hard schedule. They get on with it too, somehow, because it's something they just love doing.

 

I don't like this notion that art students are lazy people who are temporarily avoiding the job market, and who will ultimately contribute nothing useful to society. That kind of course snobbery belongs on The Student Room, not here. And that's coming from someone with a heavy background in science and humanities.

Agreed, coming from someone with a Computer Science background.

 

If governments are going to subsidize education (which they should) it should be all programs, not a discriminatory priority approach.

[Will H]

As another point of interest, I know a few arts students, including those in the fine arts, and they are in some of the most demanding courses you can take. As far as University courses go, the music classes (not stuff like music appreciation, I mean things like composition and performance courses) are quite possibly the most demanding courses offered, easily on par with Engineering, Law, and Medicine. Most of the people who are either taking some sort of performing art class, or work in one of the support roles (such as costume design), work their asses off, and their work consumes their lives.

During my year at med school, there was only one other group of students that I really didn't envy when it came to workload. Drama students. The amount of work they technically have to do for the degree isn't much at all, but throw in all the stuff they realistically need to do in order to have any decent prospects for the future, and you've yourself got a stupidly hard schedule. They get on with it too, somehow, because it's something they just love doing.

 

I don't like this notion that art students are lazy people who are temporarily avoiding the job market, and who will ultimately contribute nothing useful to society. That kind of course snobbery belongs on The Student Room, not here. And that's coming from someone with a heavy background in science and humanities.

 

I think we're trying to obfuscate the matter by talking about the difficulty of the degree. Obviously art students aren't lazy and there's plenty of art degrees that are harder than most science degrees, but I don't see what it's got to do with how much it should be subsidised. What is demonstrably true is that there are degrees that are more beneficial to the economy than others, and that's what should decide how much they should be subsidised by the government. After all, the economic returns is the reason why they are invested in by the government at all.

 

I just think that leaving subsidies as a flat rate is a wasted opportunity to better tune and make a positive impact on the economy.

[Danqazmlp]

A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same). If you want to be in a job that can actively effect the economy past taxes, skip university and go work on an oil rig, down a mine or in commerce straight from school. Just because you have a degree in engineering doesn't mean your money will have a better effect on the economy than somebody who works in a design studio.

 

The freedom of education is what makes a country great, not the driving force behind it's economy. Yes we should discourage people from going to university if all they are doing it for is to put off getting a job, but people who are actively interested in doing something a a career should be just as free to get higher education in the arts as in the sciences, or the humanities as the technologies.

[Assume Nothing]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

[Danqazmlp]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

 

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off.

 

High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what.

 

Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There was a really good article I once read but I can't remember the URL or website name for the life of me. I found this, but it doesn't specify whether people with, for example, music degrees are getting jobs in music, or whether the graduates are making more money than their non-graduate counterparts in other fields (admin, for example).

[Will H]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

 

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off.

 

High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what.

 

Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

 

You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees.

[Danqazmlp]

"A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same)."

 

You've given it a condition that we know doesn't happen. High earning graduates earn much more on average, and it's not just the tax revenue that's the economic benefit of them; it's the fact that those industries are a necessity to a thriving, prosperous society/economy.

 

We can't expect people to work more than full time to supplement the income/wealth gap between them.

 

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off.

 

High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what.

 

Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

 

You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees.

 

Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities?

[Randox]

The highest wages in the world belong to business graduates. Specifically, the handful who are willing to sacrifice their family life, and are ruthless enough (read idiopathic tendencies) to make it to CEO. Also, the worlds top actors. The next tier down are going to be the absolute top lawyers, engineers and architects in the world (and when I say top, I mean you could probably fit all the people who are in this category in your living room at the same time). Then you have the higher end medical professionals (surgeons and anesthesiologists). Then you have the rest of the medical world interspersed with the high end of the other professions, and the top people from every other industry (fashion design, computer programming, economists (also actuaries), political scientists, DARPA researchers, etc.). After this point your looking at people making less than $100,000 a year before taxes, aka most of the world.

 

That's my rough guess at least.