Skip to main content

Tuition fees

As the government votes tomorrow on the new tuition fees regime, I find myself coming round to the view that the policy may be a good one. The essential question is: who should pay for university education? The government from general taxation, or former students in the form of a graduate tax or a repayment scheme? As a left-leaning person I have always liked the idea of the taxpayer contributing to services which are for the public good. But I also like the notion of progressive taxation since it compensates for awful inequalities in salaries.

The government's scheme is, in effect, a very progressive form of graduate taxation/repayment. The more you earn, the more you pay. If you don't earn much at all, then you pay nothing. Non-graduates, who tend to earn less, pay relatively little.

Will the thought of a huge debt put some young people off higher education? We cannot be sure, though it seems that when fees were first introduced they did not stop the number of applications rising.  Maybe the thought of a postgraduate debt could be a test of a student's real motivation. I suspect most will make that rational judgment that a degree will often lead to a higher income, or that if they do not get a reasonably paid job then they won't pay anyway.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=413790

What I haven't yet grasped is how the scheme will help to reduce the government deficit, since the money will only start to be recouped in four years. I also wonder what will happen to graduates who go and work overseas. Will they pay back their fees? I also wonder how difficult and costly it will be to chase up the enormous number of graduates as their careers progress.

In the meantime, there is the far less reported issue of the government's overall funding for universities which is set to fall considerably. The government plans to only fund STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths). Universities will have to fund other subjects themselves. I'm not quite sure how this will affect students' subject choices. Is the idea that creating more places in STEM subjects and fewer places in non-STEM subjects will force students to opt for maths, science and engineering? I am not sure this would work and in any case I would rather see students being able to choose subjects they are interested in, rather than ones the government think are strategically important. Education for education's sake.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,