Scrapping Tuition Fees

[fLow]

Been arguing this all morning so I want to see some other opinions.

Basically, what I've been saying is that the only viable way for tuition fees to be scrapped is in a way that gets economic return; so it's investment. So that means humanities/arts subjects wont be on my list of tuition fees to scrap, because, all though they might benefit society in some ways, they wont make the returns and will make a lot of waste.

If you scrap tuition fees for scientists, you have more technicians that you can make use in the area of sustainable and green economy which is priority in most science fields at the moment. So the case for that is near unchallengable (any takers?)

if you scrap it for other subjects you have a system where taxes get poured into education; we end up with a very educated society but one that is probably unsustainable and thus wont last long because where does the money come from to keep funding this excessive system?

Another point I was making was the actual use of the degree title. It means different things for scientists and artists in terms of employability. Musicians do not get rejected on their qualification merit. But scientists will. You wouldn't want unqualified technicians working on the LHC would you? But does it bother you that your favourite rapper doesn't have a bachelors in music? There is more demand for qualified scientists than artists.

So I reckon to make the discussion of scrapping tuition fees happen more seriously, it should take out certain subjects.

[Knight]

Some points:

First off, one thing that I find problematic is the definition of which subject gets economic return. Most people would have put the subject "economics" into the field of science. But you can argue very well that the teachings of that subject are directly responsible for the collapse of economics systems worldwide and the destruction of a huge amount of economic value.

Second, I find the way you'd have to evaluate economic problematic itself. You write: "all though they might benefit society in some ways". What does that mean? Which benefit is of economic value - and which isn't? Because in the end, it is all very much connected to each other. And each subject that benefits society directly OR indirectly benefits the economy. And vice versa. Plus, if one would use finnacial evaluations of the economy, there is no consideration of justice.

Also, what do you define as "make a lot of waste"? Because without clearer definiton, the value created by most scientist (who work in all kinds of fields, also in businesses of course) can be considered waste in many ways.

Third, scrapping tuition fees for science subjects as you propose creates one dimensional stimulus. If there are tuition fees for some kind of subjects but not for others, we'd have to deal with the problem that these other subjects are not likely to educate a lot of students anymore.

Fourth, how do you come to the conclusion that a system without tuition fees is "probably unsustainable"? Please elaborate.
In countries where there are no tuition fees (examples: Germany, Czech Republic, especially scandinavian countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark) it doesn't seem to be unsustainable. Education benefits society and the economy. It creates more value and makes it possible to spread that value more justly - hence making free education more sustainable. Of course there are potential problems like everybody choosing to study because it's free - but that's a different topic. And IMO education should be regulated through skills: You can't study arts unless you show skills in the subject you apply to, you can't get a degree in science unless you prove you have the skills/knowledge you need in exams. This is already the case in most educational systems.

And another point I would like to make is that in creative arts subjects at least, as you mention music, the studies are not about the degrees. The degrees don't matter as much but that has little to do with the value of the education for a student. Those creative arts studies are extremely important to sustain a culture where for example critical political thinking is being taught - and the expression of such and representation of oneself or other groups. Whether there is a degree or not does not matter, but the subject is important to society and should be supported by the state.

[fLow]

Some points:

First off, one thing that I find problematic is the definition of which subject gets economic return. Most people would have put the subject "economics" into the field of science. But you can argue very well that the teachings of that subject are directly responsible for the collapse of economics systems worldwide and the destruction of a huge amount of economic value.

Yeah, it's inevitable that economics get mentioned. It's complex and I WOULD include it, only because it has potential in that it whether it is responsible for economic collapse or not, it, without action, is merely a subject that is capable of learning and digressing knowledge of economy.

Second, I find the way you'd have to evaluate economic problematic itself. You write: "all though they might benefit society in some ways". What does that mean? Which benefit is of economic value - and which isn't? Because in the end, it is all very much connected to each other. And each subject that benefits society directly OR indirectly benefits the economy. And vice versa. Plus, if one would use finnacial evaluations of the economy, there is no consideration of justice.

There is interconnection. However, we will never see a shortage of artists. A shortage of philosophers. There is no need for incentive to gain more of these. Since the revelation of the effect of climate change and since we've come to understand that our energy sources aren't unlimited, we've been in need of more researchers and technicians who are focused on this. We need medical degrees, chemistry degrees, physics degrees. We don't need arts degrees. Why? Because art flourishes without being a discipline. It doesn't need to be a discipline and thus doesn't need funding which can go elsewhere.

Also, what do you define as "make a lot of waste"? Because without clearer definiton, the value created by most scientist (who work in all kinds of fields, also in businesses of course) can be considered waste in many ways.

By making a lot of waste I mean money that is invested into tuition, only to produce qualified individuals that there is no demand for. That is a waste. You have people with arts degrees working in places totally unrelated to art, next to people with either none, or a less of an education (in terms of time). It's a waste of time and money investing in things that there is no demand for.

Third, scrapping tuition fees for science subjects as you propose creates one dimensional stimulus. If there are tuition fees for some kind of subjects but not for others, we'd have to deal with the problem that these other subjects are not likely to educate a lot of students anymore.

One dimensional stimulus, yes. Does it matter if the amount of arts degrees students decreases? Is it going to stop art? No. Art will continue. Why? It doesn't consist of disciplines. It is rather about freedom of expression than discipline. Many famous artists have not been degree students.

Fourth, how do you come to the conclusion that a system without tuition fees is "probably unsustainable"? Please elaborate.
In countries where there are no tuition fees (examples: Germany, Czech Republic, especially scandinavian countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark) it doesn't seem to be unsustainable. Education benefits society and the economy. It creates more value and makes it possible to spread that value more justly - hence making free education more sustainable. Of course there are potential problems like everybody choosing to study because it's free - but that's a different topic. And IMO education should be regulated through skills: You can't study arts unless you show skills in the subject you apply to, you can't get a degree in science unless you prove you have the skills/knowledge you need in exams. This is already the case in most educational systems.

Sweeden is going to begin charging tuition fees. Most of Germany charges tuition fees. I know nothing about the rest, but nevertheless; even if it is sustainable, I think it's a waste as the money could be going into other things. If it works for the scandanavians, then fine.

And another point I would like to make is that in creative arts subjects at least, as you mention music, the studies are not about the degrees. The degrees don't matter as much but that has little to do with the value of the education for a student. Those creative arts studies are extremely important to sustain a culture where for example critical political thinking is being taught - and the expression of such and representation of oneself or other groups. Whether there is a degree or not does not matter, but the subject is important to society and should be supported by the state.

You haven't addressed why they should be supported at university level so I trust you agree that there are no need for degree programmes for these subjects - as you've said. These matters of education can be taught in earlier school and do not require specialist programmes. The matters of culture you mentioned are more likely to be preserved via earlier school since at earlier ages influences are more likely to be instilled.