Paul, In Aus we have a 3 tier system of university fees (HECS) with law and
medicine attracting the highest rate and economics in the 2nd tier. Students
can pay up front which attracts a significant discount and obviously favours
those with rich (and generous!) parents. Alternatively it is taken out of
taxable income once it reaches a threshold of $20,000 or so. Thus a student
who undertakes a degree purely out of interest pays no fees, if s/he does
not work subsequently (a retired person for example). Except for the
significant up front discount the structure of the HECS system is good,
altho you could argue over the relativities and the threshold for repayment
and rate of repayment. Unfortunately some unis now offer places to students
who failed to get adequate marks in exchange for significant up front fees.
I find this abhorrent because academic standards are being sacrificed in
pursuit of the $. There has been a scandal over claims that fee paying
international students are given favourable treatment re passing. One
academic from the University of Wollongong who made these claims has been
sacked. Needless to say this issue is not dead!
Kind regards
Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2001 6:20
Subject: [PEN-L:8665] Re: Re: Re: farewell to academe
> I think Brad is wrong here. The rise in tuition fees in the US
> (relative to those in Canada) has been credited with restricting the
> supply of graduates thereby increasing the college/non-college
> differential in the US. For reasons we all teach in labour
> economics courses, tuition fees discriminate against those who
> come from lower income families.
>
> Over 30 years ago I wrote a paper calling for zero fees and an
> income based surtax for people who have taken a university degree
> such that there is a tax on the college based income differential
> sufficient to pay the public cost (net of the social gain). Thus, a
> graduate of a business school who makes a very high income
> would pay a much higher tuition fee than a poor philosophy
> graduate. However, no one has seen fit to follow my suggestion
> that I am aware of.
>
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 01, at 9:30, Brad DeLong wrote:
>
>
> > I believe *very* strongly that in a good society education--as much
> > education as people want--should be free. But free higher education
> > is not an equality-promoting measure. I cannot look at the doubling
> > of in-state undergraduate tuition and fees for U.C. Berkeley to its
> > current $4200 a year as a very bad thing. The average college-high
> > school wage premium these days is $7.50 an hour, after all. Public
> > subsidies for higher education are regressive.
> >
> > I think that the public should subsidize higher education: I think
> > the social benefits from mass secondary and mass higher education are
> > enormous.
> >
> > But don't imagine that you are fighting for equality or for social
> > justice when you demand that in-state fees for Berkeley undergrads be
> > cut and that a little bit more of the wages of the guy at the 7-11 go
> > to fund the Berkeley undergrad's education.
> >
> > The sickest--absolutely the sickest--meeting ever was when then
> > Berkeley Provost Carol Christ opined that Berkeley had an obligation
> > to keep the in-state tuition of students at all its professional
> > schools, including its Business and Law Schools, very low.
> > Income-contingent loans, yes. But a straight $15,000 a year subsidy
> > for students at Haas and Boalt?
> >
> >
> > Brad DeLong
> >
>
