We Really Must Subsidise Grievance Studies Courses

A useful background to the idea of student fees and loans is that the people doing the studying should have skin in the game as to whether their study is actually economically valuable for the rest of society. I know this because I’m on the periphery of the group of people who made the argument.

Further queer interpretations of Jane Austen’s oeuvre may well be fascinating for both student and teacher but they’re not the sort of thing which adds value to the bus system in Macclesfield. Therefore the users of the bus system in Macclesfield should not be taxed for Jane Austen queer studies. The student, the one gaining the enjoyment, should be carrying the cost.

How we measure this value add, well, we’ve a method for that. Called the market for the labour that has been so trained. Where the training adds value then the wages paid will be higher than the cost of the study. Thus the benefits – the higher wages – are going to flow to the student, stick the costs on the student and we’ll get economically rational decisions.

Maybe. But that’s probably the best we can do in aligning incentives.

So, why would anyone be against this?

Every adult will be entitled to six years of free study under Labour plans for a radical expansion of lifelong learning, as part of its vision for a cradle-to-grave national education service.

In a speech in Blackpool on Tuesday, the shadow education secretary Angela Rayner will pledge that a Labour government would “throw open the doors” to adult learners to enable them to study and retrain throughout their lives.

Under Labour’s proposals, any adult without A-level or equivalent qualifications would be able to study for them for free at college, with maintenance grants available for those on low incomes.

The six-year free entitlement will also cover undergraduate degrees, higher national certificates, foundation degrees and diplomas of higher education in areas including engineering technicians, nursing associates and professional accounting technicians.

Well, if your voting block includes absolutely everyone in the country who teaches grievance studies and the softer arts then this alignment of incentives isn’t desired. Because making economically rational decisions isn’t going to create the flood of youngsters your voting block can be employed to leach off. Therefore you’ll want to tear up those incentives, won’t you?

With the interesting happenstance that every academic of education in the country will scream in delight at your jolly idea. ‘Cuz there’s lots of Tories in that sector too, right?

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
4 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Nautical NickSpikePatDaniel Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Daniel
Guest
Daniel

I’ve long thought that the way we do post 16 education in this country is flawed. My proposal is every 16 year old gets education vouchers for 5 years of full time education, to be taken at any time. So if said 16 year old is not academic they can leave school and do something useful for a few years and then come back if they want to, other to get some core skills, or do something they may be more passionate about. Of course this would improve education and wouldn’t create non jobs for the grievence industry.

Pat
Guest
Pat

I’d say let everyone that wants to leave at 14 provided they can get in the top 90% in a competitive exam for 14 year olds. The kids that want out will have a reason to study, and hence will disrupt the rest less. Everyone has an incentive to try. The slow pupils can be identified and given special help, so most will reach that standard by 18. And as you say, a voucher enabling any unused years to be taken at a later time.

Pat
Guest
Pat

The value of a degree comes from the status conferred. Only occasionally is the knowledge acquired useful. Flood the market with graduates and the status conferred by possession of a degree will decline. It’s already started to happen with graduates unable to find employment that actually requires a degree. This idea would provide a temporary surge in the numbers in education, followed by a collapse in the value placed on education. A good thing, as education is nowhere near as useful as fashionable opinion would have it. BTW the problem with the present system is that people with no experience… Read more »

Spike
Guest
Spike

Direct subsidy from government to university (involving, in the US, competition for statistics that measure your state’s “commitment to higher education”) is plenty of moral hazard to induce students to enroll in classes that support their current biases rather than teach them anything. There’s no need to pay the students too. Then again, free loot! yay!

Nautical Nick
Guest
Nautical Nick

Perhaps Ms Rayner would like to take advantage of it herself….