Why should 60% pay? (From York Press)

I hope John Smith isn't expecting this 40% to contribute to his pension when he's older then.

It's good to know that Mr Smith will support me in holding back the portion of my taxes that go to things I don't use, need, or want, such as universities, schools (state and private sectors alike), motorways, the armed forces, the police, the monarchy, the House of Lords, libraries, banks, the EU, the Olympics, etc.

What counts as 'useful service' to the community?

Even if there aren't enough graduate jobs around, does society not benefit from having a much more educated population?

The benefits from education don't just stem from the skills needed to do certain jobs. Having more people who understand science, economics, psychology, philosophy etc means a greater number of people able and willing to question and challenge the ignorance of others.

And there's me thinking post-war governments of both colours have been making it increasingly easier for kids to get into University in order to keep the youth unemployment figures down!

Seriously, though, Matt_S hits the nail on the head when it comes to the real value of higher education.

Matt_S wrote:
What counts as 'useful service' to the community?

Even if there aren't enough graduate jobs around, does society not benefit from having a much more educated population?

The benefits from education don't just stem from the skills needed to do certain jobs. Having more people who understand science, economics, psychology, philosophy etc means a greater number of people able and willing to question and challenge the ignorance of others.

Brilliant post, very well said.

People should be given the chance to find where their skills lie and reach their full potential. Surely any society should have about giving youth a chance.

Also - who is to say what skills will be required during the working lifetime of someone who is 18 today? I would say it is safer to educate to the individual's strengths and then see what happens. Luckily nobody told Lennon he couldn't study music, or J.K Rowling, English.

As for what taxes are used for....can't believe people still trot out that argument; all of us use some taxpayer funded resources but not others. You can't pick and choose - 'I'll pay for health, but not (say) education.' Ridiculous.

Even AndyD wrote:
People should be given the chance to find where their skills lie and reach their full potential. Surely any society should have about giving youth a chance.

Also - who is to say what skills will be required during the working lifetime of someone who is 18 today? I would say it is safer to educate to the individual's strengths and then see what happens. Luckily nobody told Lennon he couldn't study music, or J.K Rowling, English.

As for what taxes are used for....can't believe people still trot out that argument; all of us use some taxpayer funded resources but not others. You can't pick and choose - 'I'll pay for health, but not (say) education.' Ridiculous.

I think it's right that government encourage (i.e. make cheaper/easier) for people to study certain subjects than others. Sure, we can't be sure *exactly* what skills will be required over the coming 50/60 years, but we can be almost certain that there is a more urgent need for university-trained scientists than, say, university-trained artists.

After all, Lennon didn't study music at uni, and JK Rowling didn't study English...

It is certainly an interesting debate, Matt and one which is raging today. Many modern educational thinkers (Ken Robinson being an example) currently recommend that rather than shoe-horning students into what might (or might not) be required in the future, you instead try to nurture their existing, or emerging talents.

Okay, not everyone can be a musician, but the human brain is programmed to learn quickly in areas of interest and natural aptitude. You therefore have to be careful that you don't waste resources (and lives!) coercing students into workplace requirements which are at best, wild guesses.

The Lennon/Rowling analogy isn't about university, its about concentrating on where your talents lie, because therein lies your greatest chance of success, happiness and being a useful member of society!

42% of our youth go into HE, 38% finish undergraduate degrees. 12% used to go in the past.

In the past........an all too high proportion of that 12% was from rich families. Why? Because of the better education they could afford their children. When money can buy extra tuition and coaching it is understandable that an imbalance was seen. That's not to say that the poor didn't get there, just that the poor had less chances of qualifying for the step up.

And it wasn't 90% paying for their education, because that 12% were likely to move into jobs that resulted in them paying taxes that more than paid for their education.

This is a far sight different from today where many of our youth may graduate university in a form of "negative equity" where their earnings are concerned. ie. They may earn less over their working lifetime over and above what an A level leaver would have earned than the education itself cost.

HE institutions asked the government to allow more students in based on capability, and the government agreed, but wasn't going to increase the money that was set aside for the students. Take twice as many students? Make the money go twice as far. HE institutions had to adopt business practises to raise more money to fund education, and they've moved towards a mode of operation that, through the government having a less than academic hand in, is reaching breaking point.

True meritocracy is a necessity in our purportedly equal society, and the issues with education before HE may be seen as related indeed. The International Students situation is showing this up right now at LMU (which is perhaps minor compared to the private language centers and colleges) but since the government and UKBA are not being very clear with the details, it's difficult to see where this will end up.

If you can't stand to see so many of our youth going to uni and would rather there be a return to polytechnics and more trade training, then explaining where the jobs they will enter on passing their training may be difficult as we've seen with the government smashing our manufacturing industry and the terrible house building situation we've found ourselves in.

Any education curriculum that is controlled by the government should be seen in values of providing education for a future workforce. So we must ask what workforce our countries government envisions for our youth. Are we left with just a service industry ("Do you want fries with that?") or is there truly a momentous culture changing event coming up?