Loans for third level education - Big Mistake

R

raven

Registered User
Messages
220
Just heard a proposal to adopt an australian style loan system for 3rd level education.

IMO, this would be a big mistake and is a very dangerous proposal. Australia suffers from a phenomonal brain drain problem, very much attributable to their loan scheme. The loan system is a huge incentive on graduates to go abroad to work and avoid paying back their loans. If they ever return back, they tend to do so after many years when their earnings have grown immensely, allowing them to easily pay back their loans.

Also, I reject the argument that since 3rd level graduates earn higher wages, and benefit "most" from their education, they should bear most the cost.
We all benefit from having a high skills base and it is essential for the broader economy. IMO, it is perfectly valid for all taxpayers to contribute to education. Let's face it, education is the only genuine, sustainable differentiator we have in out economy
 
I do not think it is fair to burden those who do not attend college with the cost of paying for those who do. Also, I think promoting third level education as "free" leads to a lot of waste - people attending courses for the sake of it and then dropping out. It is not for no reason that colleges refuse to publish drop-out rates of courses.

However, I had not considered the potential effect on emigration. Certainly, it would be better to have people not contribute directly toward the cost of their education and pay taxes than not contribute or pay taxes.

Personally, I think it would be better to bring in fees with a waiver for those from low income families than this loan arrangement.
 
raven said:
Also, I reject the argument that since 3rd level graduates earn higher wages, and benefit "most" from their education, they should bear most the cost.
Click to expand...

My take would be that by leveraging the education into a higher salaries, 3rd level grads in turn pay more tax, effectively covering the cost of educating them...and then some, longterm.
 
room305 said:
I do not think it is fair to burden those who do not attend college with the cost of paying for those who do. Also, I think promoting third level education as "free" leads to a lot of waste - people attending courses for the sake of it and then dropping out. It is not for no reason that colleges refuse to publish drop-out rates of courses.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
room305 said:
I do not think it is fair to burden those who do not attend college with the cost of paying for those who do. Also, I think promoting third level education as "free" leads to a lot of waste - people attending courses for the sake of it and then dropping out. It is not for no reason that colleges refuse to publish drop-out rates of courses.
Click to expand...

Maybe these people should contribute to the cost? ie. If you don't pass, the fees get triggered.

Problem is those who genuinely can't keep up get a double whammy, - huge disappointment of failure, and now a financial burden.

Anyway, - although there is waste, - these people who do drop out do pay a significant price in lost opportunity
 
rmelly said:
My take would be that by leveraging the education into a higher salaries, 3rd level grads in turn pay more tax, effectively covering the cost of educating them...and then some, longterm.
Click to expand...

Good point
 
The systems of paying fees seems to work fine in the UK. And the way some courses get bursaries (eg healthcare, teaching) for industries that need staff works well in attracting students. I also think the drop out rate would be greatly reduced because people would think more carefully about what course they really want. I think the applications should also be like UCAS where you have to write a personal statement about why you think you'd be right for the course and what research you've done and then follow this with an interview if your application is successful. The CAO system is a joke. Judging a person on points alone when they could be completely unsuited to the course is ridiculous.
 
moondance said:
I think the applications should also be like UCAS where you have to write a personal statement about why you think you'd be right for the course and what research you've done and then follow this with an interview if your application is successful. The CAO system is a joke. Judging a person on points alone when they could be completely unsuited to the course is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

In theory it might be a fairer system but it is likely to be abused e.g. college places being given out to children of people who have contacts. It wouldn't really be fair for someone to get 600 points and be refused entry to their preferred course because someone on an interview panel just doesn't like them
 
dazza21ie said:
In theory it might be a fairer system but it is likely to be abused e.g. college places being given out to children of people who have contacts. It wouldn't really be fair for someone to get 600 points and be refused entry to their preferred course because someone on an interview panel just doesn't like them
Click to expand...

Agree.
Interviews are quite subjective.
Also, some people are simply good at "interview technique" and may come across better than those who genuinely work hard and may do a bad interview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top