The argument in favor of
government funding of education, is that an educated population is for the
general benefit of the citizenry.
The argument in favor of
doing this via a loan provision rather than by direct subsidy is that this
provides a handle whereby market mechanisms can dictate subject choices.
The idea of a liberal
education is a worthy one, and one of relevance to me where some of my adult
courses are offered to the long term unemployed via a back to education
initiative.
On this program we have been
instructed that it is no longer considered appropriate to enroll post retirement
individuals, as they are unlikely to re-enter the workforce.
This restriction arises because the money comes
from the European Social Fund which was set up to reduce differences in
prosperity and living standards across the EU and is devoted to promoting
employment.
The model here is clearly two fold.
1)
Education impacts on society primarily by increasing the amount and quality of
employment. This argument is suspect when you consider the high levels of
education and unemployment in some of the countries involved in the Arab
spring.
2) Differences in prosperity in the EU can be
reduced by making Germany pay for the rest of us. This may work, but may not
have been what the politicians were thinking of when they framed the
legislation.
It may be time to rethink this program as EU funding is getting tight.
it
may now be the right time to give all such students a good background in the Stioc
philosophy, rather than waving the chimera of "wonderful hi tech jobs
waiting" in front of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment